|
reason that the Planning Department initially took a second look at this proposed application for
<br />the claim was, you know, we kind of looked at the practical effect of you know what would
<br />actually happen if this matter were to go forward, and you know, as the claim is currently
<br />written, you know due to various issues with you know the County's requirement that it complies
<br />with the State Procurement Code for release of all contractual obligations whether it be funds or
<br />you know agreement of the County to seek professional assistance, the issues that were raised
<br />here. And again, you know, we know it was the --how should I say --it was the desire of this
<br />Commission to grant the claim and you know the basis and the justification for granting the
<br />claim were all, were all valid. But, I think you know the reason that we have a concern as a
<br />Department is because the practical effect of what's going to happen is this claim's going to go
<br />forward, but due to the deficiencies in the claim as it relates to issues with the Procurement
<br />Code, and as well as the condition for the creation of the review committee, the practical effect
<br />of what's going to happen as, is this claim's going to go forward and then nothing will stem, you
<br />know, follow from it. It would most often, more than likely, sit at the Finance Department, and
<br />the funds would not be released because nobodyI could almost assure you nobody within the
<br />County Finance Department would want to do anything that would be, that would violate the
<br />State Procurement Law.
<br />You know, so, the specific issues are you know, one, is as the claim currently reads, there's a
<br />specific item within the claim to pay particular individuals, you know definitive sums of money,
<br />and I think if you look at HRS, Section 103D-101, and 301, that's something that the County
<br />can't do you know beforehand. The requirement is that every claim or every contractual
<br />obligation that the County enters into has to offer a fair opportunity for everybody who may be
<br />qualified to perform the work or duties or responsibilities under that contract, has an opportunity
<br />to submit a bid on it, you know except if there's an item of such specific nature, that it falls with
<br />one of our professionals who are already on the County list to do that type of work. And, you
<br />know, it's unfortunate at that, within this claim, is a specification that a particular individual and
<br />a particular entity would be awarded the contract, and there's specific sums of money within the
<br />contract which you know kind of raised the red flag. Some, you know, the payment, to the
<br />individual was you know a thousand dollars for an hour a day for review work and two thousand
<br />dollars a day to come and actually do site visits and the like, and you know—you know, so those
<br />are the reasons as it relates to the procurement issue.
<br />The secondary issue was regarding the creation of a review board, and the problem with that
<br />again is, you know, you guys are very powerful as a Commission. Unfortunately, within your
<br />scope of authority or jurisdiction, you don't have that authority to create an independent review
<br />board. You do have the authority to create a ad hoc committee within your Commission
<br />consisting or comprised of your volunteer commissioners to sit in such a capacity, but you know,
<br />unfortunately, the way the claim as written, and the way that the approval was issued from the
<br />Commission, there was, it was—the language and the approval was more analogous to a creation
<br />of an independent "review board" and you know so that's something that you know is
<br />problematic.
<br />So, the recommendation? You know, based on those two primary issues of concern, which were
<br />briefly identified within the letter the December 17, 2014, letter from the claims adjuster,
<br />3
<br />EXHIBIT E
<br />
|