|
discussion here, that’s when the procurement issue came forward, and we addressed the situation
<br />where, you know, on their procurement, we have some, you know, concerns, you know when
<br />we’re using County funds. We have to comply with HRS 103 and the like.
<br />
<br />As it relates to your question, Commissioner Miyasato, if this matter goes forward and there’s a
<br />RFP and there’s a price stated in the RFP and the bids come in, and the actual awardee is for a
<br />higher price amount then what was identified in the bid, what then happens is the County will
<br />then come back and would have to make a secondary request to the claims adjuster to address the
<br />higher bid—you know, the difference in the requested proposed amount and the actual bid
<br />amount. They would have to go to the adjuster and then his recommendation would come
<br />forward to this Commission for approval as well.
<br />
<br />And, quite honestly, that’s what’s kind of happening with the Mayor’s department initiated
<br />study, is we’re going along those lines as well and we’re working through that process because
<br />in that case, the bids came out higher as well. So, there has to be a procedure in which we
<br />follow. So, we’re still in the process of going through the RFP requirements with the, the
<br />Mayor’s office health study proposal so, you know, so something similar like that, you know,
<br />could happen here. I’m not saying it would, but I think first and foremost what I think the
<br />Planning staff, Mr. Arai, is attempting to articulate is the fact that the first hurdle we have to go
<br />through is we have to structure the request, the application, in such a way so that when it goes
<br />back to the claims adjuster, it will receive a favorable recommendation and we address the initial
<br />problems that were identified in the first denial of the application.
<br />
<br />That’s not to say that’s mandated that we get a favorable recommendation, but when we’re
<br />dealing with public funds, you know, that’s the first step. You know, but for specific reasons as
<br />to why you know we feel that the, you know, the recommendation was inaccurate, we’d have to
<br />formulate a basis for that.
<br />
<br />So, when this matter was remanded back to the Planning Department, the first item that needed
<br />to be addressed is we had to, we have to structure the application in such a way that it would be
<br />deemed a favorable application by the claims adjuster. You know, because that’s the first hurdle.
<br />Then, once we get through that step, then we deal with the procurement issue, and, you know,
<br />like I alluded to earlier, that’s the same hurdle we’re trying to get over with the Mayor’s office,
<br />you know, the initial health study that we’re trying to procure through the Mayor’s office. We’re
<br />having to go through those issues.
<br />
<br />I hope that cleared it up. Clear as mud.
<br />
<br />MIYASATO: Okay, thank you.
<br />
<br />HEAUKULANI: Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Brilhante? Commissioner Henkel, I
<br />think to your question, and Danny, please correct me if I’m wrong, is we—I mean, this is what
<br />we have on the agenda today is just a status update for us. And, I see that we’ve got some folks
<br />that are signed up to testify so assuming and expecting that we’re going to get the position of the
<br />Applicants and their representatives.
<br />
<br />5
<br />EXHIBIT E
<br />
<br />
<br />
|