COM 0041.001 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ER Complaint - Missappropriation of State Glass Container Tax Page 3 businesses that $216,000 has been allocated to the County by the State every year from 1995 tit the year 2000. The total five year amount equals $1,080,000. Environmental Recycling discovered what our company believes to be a misappropriation of funds. The County failed to distribute State funds as directed under HRS Chapters 103 and 103D. Chapter 103D-303, Competitive sealed proposals, "a contract may be entered into by competitive sealed proposals," is required by the State when the County distributes, "specified types of goods and services." Through my own investigation of facts that developed as early as September 4, 1995 to the present, I realized that the County failed to tell anyone of the special State funds. Throughout this time I teamed, as best I could, how County of Hawaii Consultant Services Contract 96112 evolved out of RFP 1533 and how our company could protest the misappropriated funds according to County of Hawaii procurement laws. Environmental Recycling protested RFP 1533 and Contract 96112 on November 16, 95. The County denied our protest. County Finance Director Mr. Takahashi stated in his 'protest denial' letter directed to Environmental Recycling dated November 21, 1995 that, "the County requests proposals in anticipation of funds". The County of Hawaii knew the approximate funds to be awarded by the State as did the company contract awardee Recycling Systems of Hawaii, Inc. Rather than the County disclosing the State funding publicly the County worked secrectly and solely with Recycling Systems to secure the funding in order to meet certain State Office of Solid Waste Management requirements. The County's failure to disclose the State funding reflects a lack of fair competition and the possibility of collusion on the part of all parties involved to undermine a fair bidding process. RFP 1533 (proposal page 4) states, "and no official or employee of the government is directly or indirectly interested in the proposal or in any portion of the profits thereof," and S.B. NO. 2170 Chapter 342G-H Penalties, "Any person who violates any provision of this part, or any rule adopted thereunder." The County of Hawaii Administrative officials failed to discose the State funding in the RFP 1533 required in Public Property, Contracting procurement code (Competitive sealed proposals) 103D-303(a), stating, "for the procurement of specified types of services". Stated clearly in 103D-303(e) the RFP shall, "state the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors". The State knew generally the basic funding amount and the State disclosed the amount to outer-island Counties in 1994. Further, in order to receive the State funding each County would be required to follow specific State Office of Solid Waste Management requirements and guidelines. RFP 1533 failed to acknowledge either the 'price or evaluation factors', nor the State requirements and guidelines. Further, the County was required to submit to the State Office of Solid Waste