Request for Proposals Leaves Room for Questions
Helen Hammons writes this report for the Parlor.
It is a difficult job to stop a ship thrown against the rocks from tearing itself apart, right the ship, and set a correct course for the open sea. When that ship is the two-year college system, long intertwined with money, scandal, and Alabama politics, and when every time the ship finds itself trying to set sail again storms keep coming, the task of skippering that ship can be herculean.
The latest small storm to blow across the bow of Chancellor Bradley Byrne’s ship are questions being raised about a contract worth a half million dollars (pdf) to conduct background checks on almost 11,000 system employees, including the chancellor himself. What appeared to be a ho-hum state Board of Education (SBOE) meeting on March 27, turned into a discussion of the system’s selection of the New Market, Alabama –based company, The Integrity Group, LLC (TIG), for the job. At that point the contract was signed, even though it did not go into effect until today, April 1.
The Alabama Education Association (AEA) has raised questions about members of the group who are lobbyists, and Andre Reid, the man who signed the contract, has many political connections. The only questions raised by the Board back on March 13 when TIG’s name was first raised was why the Alabama Bureau of Investigation (ABI), which does the background checks on K-12 employees, is not doing this job.
Byrne told the Board back on March 13,” We can do it more cost effectively, less intrusively through this group called the Integrity Group than they can do it at ABI. We love the folks at ABI, they work with us on a lot of things so it’s not in any way a detrimental comment to ABI, we went with the process and found somebody who can do it better, cheaper.”
Concerned that the Board had received some bad publicity for lack of oversight on other contracts, Dr. Ethel Hall raised the issue of the contract again at the March 27 SBOE meeting. “As I recall that contract’s worth a half million dollars and that doesn’t come before the Board?”
The answer to that question is – no. There is nothing to require it. Under current policy the Board has to review contracts let by the colleges for more than $100,000. This contract was let by the department using the request for proposals (RFP) process.
Request for Proposals Leave Room for Questions
The request for proposal (RFP) process that results in private entities getting millions of dollars in contracts from state entities, is a known loophole heaven. For the most part, the Alabama Code leaves it up to the government entities stating generally an individual or entity chosen should be selected by “competitive, qualification-based selection policies and procedures.”
Government entities place language in their RFPs that basically let them do what they want, and although an RFP is issued and responses may come in from dozens of vendors, one may never know whether all the details listed as requirements in an RFP have been met or not or even why the chosen company got the contract. Government entities setting the requirements out in an RFP aren’t bound to even consider those requirements. They can just include language that in essence says – it’s up to us.
To protect responding company methods and procedures, competitive advantage, and intellectual property, among other things, some information included with a RFP response from a company may, out of necessity, have to be withheld from public view. But this makes it very hard for the public to determine if, in actuality, all the requirements of the RFP have been met.
The RFP
The contract between DPE and TIG and the RFP’s standard we-can-do what- we- want language doesn’t help an entity such as DPE, which has been under the spotlight due to previous scandals involving money and contracts.
The RFP for the contract has the standard language allowing DPE to pretty much do what they want in the selection process.
“The Department reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, in whole or in part, to advertise for new proposals, to abandon the need for services, and to cancel or amend this RFP at any time prior the execution of the written contact. Postsecondary reserves the right to waive any formalities in the RFP process.”
“The Department may respond to questions or provide information from Respondents, and is under no obligation to provide responses or information to all other Respondents.”
“The Department will review and evaluate all proposals using its sole judgment and discretion, and make (sic) take into account the content of the responses and any other factors in its judgment.”
One of those other factors, based on public statements, appears to be that TIG did the background check on the 20-semifinalists last year in four presidential searches. That particular contract was for less than $7,500 and is not required to be bid.
Byrne told the Board, “We selected that particular vendor directly and recommended them to the colleges. The colleges, each college pays the cost of their part of the search process…We recommended them.” Concerning TIG’s performance, Byrne also told the Board, “We did work with them on our presidential searches last fall and I think they did an excellent and incredibly thorough job when you look at some of the detail. They did it in a very timely fashion, so we were very pleased with that. We did not know they were going to be low bidders(on the background check for all employees RFP), but we were pleased when they were. “
The Selection Process
The process related to background checks has been open. The policy to allow background checks in DPE was passed by the SBOE in December. K-12 already does background checks through the Alabama Bureau of Investigation (ABI).
The RFP soliciting vendors to apply for the contract was dated January 8, 2008. Submissions had to be “postmarked by February 1, 2008,” according to the RFP.
According to the department, 17 vendors submitted proposals for the contract and the system said Friday that ABI did not submit a proposal, “DPE officials met with the Alabama Bureau of Investigation last fall to inquire about them doing our criminal background checks. They told us that they could only provide us with Alabama criminal records and the FBI would not allow them access to their records for these purposes. K-12 is only allowed to through a special provision in federal law. This is federal regulation, not state policy. When we asked about it, they suggested we talk to our Senators. The ABI did not respond to our RFP since they are not able to provide the nationwide search to postsecondary institutions. “
Further information provided by the department says once the proposal responses came in the field was narrowed.
“When DPE reviewed the proposals, the field was narrowed to three top proposals: the Integrity Group, U.S. Diagnostics, and General Information Services, Inc. The pricing for a nationwide criminal background check for these were Integrity: $45; U.S. Diagnostics: $50; and GIS: $52.75, plus individual state records if their method of indicating a conviction shows a positive result. The price is based upon individual searches, i.e. per person.”
The contract was approved by the Alabama Legislative Contract Review Oversight Committee on Feb. 7. One minor oddity is that the closing date for documentation required to have a contract considered by the committee’s February review, which includes the name of the contractor, is listed as January 28, 2008. The closeout date for the RFP was not until February 1, 2008. Now it is not uncommon for the committee to be flexible with its paperwork submission dates.
The contract was actually signed on March 3, to go into effect April 1, by Chancellor Byrne and Andre Reid of The Integrity Group, whose title listed on the contract is “consultant.”
Political Connections
It is Reid’s political connections that raised eyebrows at AEA and with others. Reid’s bio in part says the following:
“He knows the dynamics of politics. He understands the issues and very importantly the process. He had great teachers, including former Alabama Governors Fob James, Don Siegelman, and Alabama Lt. Governor Steve Windom, who became one of Andre’s most trusted political friends.”
One of the Windom connections to Byrne is that Windom has made contributions to Byrne’s political campaigns. Byrne also has ties to Fob James, having worked in political campaigns for James years ago. The tangential connections between Reid and Byrne don’t end there with Reid being a Mobile native and connections to the Business Council of Alabama.
Reid’s bio goes on to state.
“He [Reid] is the trusted advisor and lobbyist to many organizations including BellSouth, City of Prichard, Mobile County Commissioners Office, Mobile County Pension Fund (Firemen and Police Officers), Business Council of Alabama, Alabama Nursing Home Association, and Steve Windom, LLC to name a few…” The bio also lists former Attorney General Bill Pryor as “Andre’s high school friend.”
Reid is also listed as a lobbyist for The Integrity Group, AT&T, the Austin Group, the City of Prichard and the Town of Mt. Vernon according to the state Ethics Commission list. Reid served on the security protection details for Seth Hammett and Lowell Barron as well .
All three members of TIG, Tom Taylor, Andre Reid, and Danny Hester have extensive law enforcement backgrounds, predominantly with the Alabama Department of Public Safety. Hester is listed as a lobbyist with the state Ethics Commission for the Emerald Triangle Commission, The Integrity Group, Randolph Properties, Inc, and the Alabama State Troopers Association. Taylor is only listed as a lobbyist for TIG.
The law enforcement background of all TIG’s members is unquestionably extensive and shows they are extremely well qualified in law enforcement credentials. As to his knowledge of the members of TIG, Byrne told the Board, “Some of them I know better than others. They’ve all been friends (with each other) a long time, I just don’t know some of them.”
Folks, if we eliminate anyone from a business contract that has political connections in this state, there won’t be any contracts let. Personally, come to think about it, that might not be a bad idea. I asked Byrne following the Board meeting about the political connection issue and whether anyone had looked at that.
“No. I didn’t even know who had bid and didn’t have anything to do with the bidding process. We had an intra-department group that reviewed all the bids to make sure they were adequate, and met what we were looking for and then basically lined them up on price and they won based on price.”
I thought I might be able to put to rest any speculation along those lines so I inquired of the department Friday whether “anyone at DPE, including the chancellor, have [had] ANY contact of any kind with Steve Windom related to Integrity Group, any of its members or this contract?”
The department’s reply , “We have no knowledge of this.”
And I inquired, “besides Byrne, is anyone in the DPE process for awarding or approving these contracts friends, associates or otherwise in regular contact with Windom or any of the three owners of Integrity?” Again the reply, “We have no knowledge of this. We do not collect or maintain this information on our employees.”
Was the contract to TIG last fall a way to give the company a leg up, under the RFP “other factors” language, for the bigger contract? I think it’s just the way contracts are done with state entities which need to have some leeway in the contract process. But the loophole language in RFPs leaves room for speculation and the fact the department selected the firm for the presidential searches and then recommended them to the colleges, and then the same company won the bigger contract in which “other factors” played a part and TIG’s political connections leaves that possibility open for question.
The Contract and the Board
While the background check policy date is December 13, 2007, the mentioning of the name of the firm, TIG, awarded the contract, appears to have been first mentioned to the Board during the March 13 work session
The department is under NO legal or policy obligation to submit vendor contracts to the Board for approval. And while the RFP issued by the department is full of the traditional loopholes, DPE did follow a procedure and I have so far found nothing to indicate anything amiss in this process. Things someone in the department might should have noticed and said, “Hmm, this might not look so good,” yes. Is there room for improvement, yes.
Byrne told the Board upon questioning of department level contracts, “Just like any other contract, we just go out and do the picking of the person to do it and report it to you, but we don’t bring that approval of the contract before the board… Honestly, the board doesn’t get involved in any vendor contracts and I don’t think the board wants to be involved in vendor contracts.”
After requests for more information from board member Dr. Ethel Hall, Byrne told the Board he thought it would be a good idea that TIG make a presentation to the Board at the Board’s next work session on April 10. “…There is nothing about this company, there’s nothing about the way we’re going to implement it that we are not going to disclose to you in any way you want us to, and do so in a public fashion. We’re very comfortable with that. I know there’s one of the interest groups out there trying to make an issue out of this and I understand that, but this is a good thing. We’re happy to tell the public in full what we’re doing and how we’re doing it.”
Eliminating Future Doubts
The information in TIG’s RFP response (available here as released, and here as broken down by question), at least based on the information released to me, did not seem to include all the things asked for in the RFP. When I inquired about any remaining documentation I was pointed by the department to the section of the RFP which states the “The Department may respond to questions or provide information from Respondents, and is under no obligation to provide responses or information to all other Respondents,” one of the loophole and to the section that said, “make(sic) take into account the content of the responses and any other factors in its judgment.”
The problem is the only people that really have all the information is DPE, nothing unusual in state government. If DPE wants to eliminate doubts on future contract lettings it should recommend to the state Board of Education a policy setting out exactly how department level contracts will be awarded and should lead the way and remove the loophole language, standard in almost all government entity RFPs, from their RFPs, make requirements really requirements and not suggestions that can be discarded as the department sees fit if it wishes to, and insist vendor’s responding to RFPs indicate in an attachment to their response, even if only by paragraph number, which requirements of the RFP are being submitted under company privilege and in separate documents, and there are probably other things that should be considered, and for all we know may be under consideration.
You will never remove all doubt from those looking for a reason to criticize, but a ship can be tightened up to weather future storms and make even an appearance of impropriety hard to see. I will reiterate based on what I’ve seen to this point, there was nothing improper about the way the two-year system awarded this contract. The two-year college system is moving in the right direction by tightening up its policies and procedures. It is doing a lot of good work to help people in the state have better lives and the department’s success is vital to the state’s economic development. They can do themselves more service by tightening up the way department level contracts are awarded and give people fewer reasons to raise questions. Are critics grasping at straws in the battle over who will ultimately control the system? Perhaps, yes. Is DPE perhaps being held to a higher standard than other government entities? Perhaps, yes. But with the department’s background that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Related Articles:
Grammar: Requests for Proposals leave room or Request for Proposals leaves room. The headline is clearly incorrect.
Comment by acck! — April 1, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Acck! Good eye (and/or ear). Thanks. Changed.
Comment by Danny — April 2, 2008 @ 1:03 pm