2016-03-03 Hearing Transcript - Update Puna Pono Alliance et al GAF Claim

Home

ARAI: As far as the—you know, we have had limited discussion with the parties. Part of the challenge has been that the Department has been charged in making efforts to structure or assist the Claimants in structuring an RFP, and obviously to structure it in a way that hopefully it will be successful through the various processes that such a RFP has to go through. One of the challenges I guess has been that the current claim as structured was recommended for denial by the claim adjuster, and even though that recommendation was originally—what’s the proper word—rejected, at a subsequently meeting, the reconsideration, the Commission voted to use the claim adjuster’s recommendation as the basis for its action which, of course, obviously led to the desire for the Department to work with the Claimants. The Claimants were concerned about having to go and resubmit anything that is restructured back to the claims adjuster. In trying to figure out how one process flows into the other has also been a challenge because we can try to structure an RFP that best preserves what the Claimants wish to have or define as its goal or, or outcome. I feel compelled to look at also whether an RFP can reasonably be funded by going—you know, because the way we look at it is that it would have to go back to the claim adjuster for review because that is prescribed by the rules. You cannot award monies for something unless it is reviewed by the claim adjuster and then subsequently awarded by the Planning Commission. So, there’s these relationships between the various processes in trying to see how one affects the other which has led to some of the difficulties, and trying to find a clear path has been a struggle. HEAUKULANI: You know, just to make sure that I and the Commissioners understand the issue. The issue before us a year ago was the fact that our—the motion that was passed by this Commission was directed to a single individual which was contrary to State procurement laws. Correct? ARAI: Correct. HEAUKULANI: So, was it the, was it the fix to—can we fix that by eliminating that aspect of it? It just didn’t seem like it was, was that difficult to deal with either by putting it out generally to people that might, people or entities that might have a, the skill set to the study that we’re asking for or alternatively to put other individuals on the list. You know, I’m just looking at Mr. Brilhante’s on-the-record discussions, and you know, there were a lot of exceptions. You know, the University didn’t have to go through this. State agencies didn’t have to go through this. And, I thought at one point we were talking about putting other individuals that might have the skill set necessary to do this study on that approved list, I guess is the way to—but, I just don’t understand what the problem is. ARAI: There—there was an attempt to place Mr. Edelstein on the professional services list. We later found out that that’s probably not the best avenue or the proper venue by which to identify because simply my understanding of the procurement law is that after a certain amount, which I believe is more than fifty thousand is that the County of Hawaiʽi, the County has to be the 3 EXHIBIT E