COM 0041.001 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ER Complaint - Missappropriation of State Glass Container Tax Page 5 Because the County failed to acknowledge the State guidelines as prescribed under Act 201 S.B. 2170 all perspective bidders would did not have knowledge that Act 201 allowed for monies for labor, equipment, transportation,supplies...etc. in their bid. Because RSH had inside information their proposal included monies for said items. However, Mr. Takahasi declared he can dramatically change the original RFP contract specifications by stating in his denial letter to Environmental Recycling, 'that the proposals will be liberally evaluated". RFP 1533 (Proposal page 1) already stated, "the County will evaluate proposals liberally". Mr. Takahashi incorrectly defines this statement in the RFP. He reverses the original wording from, "evaluate proposals liberally" to "liberally evaluated." To "evaluate liberally" means if a perspective bidder wanted to recycle nails or baby diapers, the County would consider their proposals liberally, evaluating whether or not to the County with its own money would invest in that particular proposal. I do not believe the 'liberally' language meaning should be changed. However, the County was using State monies, not their own, therefore they could not hide the State funding in anon-specific RFP, and then misuse their powers by failing to disclose for competitive bid the State funding. The County did not disclose in the RFP prior to the RFP submittal date January 5, 95 that the State funding was available and that the County of Hawaii must comply with the requirements of Act 201, 1994 HSL S.B. No. 2170. The County changed the rules of the RFP specifications for Recycling Systems, because the County was enamored by Recycling Systems involvement in the 93'-94' State Senate Environmental Summit Hearings and their personal contact with certain State officials, of which both helped to secure monies for the Big Island politics. The State and the County pushed this funding through and earmarked it for Recycling Systems. The County of Hawaii Director of Finance oes not reserve the right to deviate from the RFP 1533 original specifications. There are major differences between RFP 1533 and Contract 96112 that greatly changes the perspective bidders understanding of the RFP. In Contract 96112 nearly the entire $216,000 award to Recycling Systems of Hawaii will be spent on exactly what the RFP Geariy stated it could not be spent on; equipment ($101,440), transportation ($20,300), supplies ($3,692), and labor ($80,527). Only advertising and public education ($10,041) fell directly into the RFP specification . All prospective bidders should have been aware that the County was receiving funds through Act 201, S.B. 2170. Language within this Act changes the perspective bidders understanding of the specifications and scope of the RFP. Knowledge of the Act also meant knowledge of funds available for equipment, labor, supplies and transportation. If the County had as one of its goals that the idea of setting up a business with all the amenities it would take to perform a certain function than that fact should have been made perfectly clear. As the RFP stated however, it was the specific interest of the