Steve, I certainly agree that containing costs of our public building projects (without sacrificing quality) is a bipartisan concern.

I would also expect to find that, as owner of a local construction firm, Mr. Loy is capable of making valid suggestions as to how the county might improve its processes in this regard.

However, on-lookers' suspicion of his self-interest isn't the only obstacle Mr. Loy faces in making himself understood.

He has previously injected into his suggestions a great deal of shrill, partisan rhetoric, all of it unnecessary to his tendering his suggestions, as well. I stopped reading them on concluding that he is not a "reliable narrator." And that's a shame.

If you are someone who can remove all this static, I'm certainly willing to listen to your straightforward translation of what he'd like to see done differently, and why.

For starters, could you possibly give us a quick overview of what Mr. Loy (and you, apparently) believes is missing from our current process, and why it would be necessary to completely abolish the PBA in order to improve on that process?

(Preview: One question I've had is whether abolishing the PBA wouldn't result in a costly duplication of construction management staff in too many county departments.)

Sandy Loy can be trusted. Any comment to the contrary is uneducated.

Sandy Loy's work:

(link...)

The first PBA in Tennessee was in Knox County. Spearheaded by Jim Haslam to build the City County Building. Two sides couldn't agree on the place and construction of the City County Building and this was proposed as a solution.

Since that time the TCA statue for the PBA has been amended giving the PBA even more power.

The PBA is the ONLY entity in Knox County that does not have to obey Knox County Procurement Standards.

Knox County Commission should vote to request the Tennessee Legislature amend the PBA act to require that PBA obey Knox County Procurement Standards. Of course PBA could do that voluntarily but why would they give up that much power?

Why should the PBA have this much power? Anyone?

OK...this comment is not about the issue. I used to work for PBA, so even if I had strong feelings they would be suspect to this group, no matter which way I leaned.

I just wanted to comment on Crawfish's post. Crawfish: if you want to vouch for someone as being credible, sign your name so people can gauge your credibility.

For the record, I count both people at PBA and Sandy Loy as friends. This is just my ongoing anonymity issue.

I'll not make any comments on PBAs being used for construction or management of buildings. But the other side to the PBAs involves the billions of dollars of bonds issued by local PBAs for other county and city governments.

Billions as in the Blount PBA has issued more than $1,670,000,000 in the past ten years including bonds for Knox County. Gee, I wonder what Blount charges for this service?

I guess this side of the PBAs needs a separate thread.

My understanding is that PBA is basically set up so that government can operate more efficiently and effectively than doing it via its own red tape laden process. The idea is that it falls somewhere between government and the private sector.

PBA has had a lot of successes and also had some issues. Its relationship with the schools has always been problematic. It was, in essence, used by Commission to handle school projects although the schools didn't really want them. That's a relationship set up for problems.

It did the Convention Center and WFP largely on time and on budget. I've heard a lot of stories about problems at Hardin Valley Academy, but don't know if they are true. I certainly think Sandy Loy has some credibility on construction issues.

The main thing I would say is this: what PBA does and builds is not so much reflective of PBA as it is of the client. PBA doesn't determine scope, materials, etc....it is a management tool to do so for the client, whether that be the city, the county or the schools. The people I worked with at PBA, both in construction and building management, was dedicated and professional. They wanted to do a good job.

That said, in this day and age everything government does should re-examined now and then. If PBA is doing a good, effective, cost-efficient job then an examination will show that.

I would point out the danger of comparing a $15m school in Knox to a $7m school in Grainger. That is not a PBA issue but an issue as to size, quality of construction, materials, land etc. Program and scope largely define cost. Building a much cheaper school is certainly possible. The issue is more political than anything--of telling some part of town "hey, we've always built Caddys, but we've decided that you are the onewhere we going to switch to a Yugo." Fine to most taxpayers, hard to swallow if you're the person getting the lower priced school. And all of that is not a PBA decision. It's a PBA client decision.

3) go to (link...) and you will see 11 change orders written over 18 months after the school was occupied. The GMP not set until 12-07, 18 months into the project. One contract which ended up being for 9.6mm that was executed before drawings were finished for "to be determined" in the amount line. These are facts from PBA provided documents.

Sandy, can you slow down for the benefit of any newbies reading along, me included?

Why would change orders be written after completion of a building, and what does that tell you happened during construction of the building?

What is "GMP?"

That third clause (something about a contract for $9.6m) isn't a complete sentence, so I'm not catching the gist of your complaint?

I'm trying to follow along here...

I have addressed a couple of comments where I have been mentioned. This is simply my own post FYI, if you care.

In 2005 Mike Ragsdale lied to me about my firm being eligible for the HVA project. At the time I was building more schools in TN than anyone, 9. After telling me one thing, he decided I wasn't going to get HVA regardless of whether I was the most qualified or not. He sent a messenger to tell me, literally. I was told that by using the PBA the Mayor could make sure he could control who was SELECTED. I can't say why it was so important to him to make sure I didn't get it...you can speculate for yourself why.

Mike Moyers was the law director at the time and he told me my submission of a proposal was not a conflict if it was disclosed...you tell me if you know more than I do as to why it was important to Ragsdale that someone else get that contract.

Since he was married to my sister at the time I didn't make a big issue of it and didn't submit a proposal. That said, I was further irritated to then see him funnel the work thru the PBA and learned of contracts being handed to people without drawings or bids.

I shared the information I knew of with KNS and Scott Barker went and "investigated"...he came back completely baffled and said there was nothing there. I then shared it with the Shopper, Larry Van Guilder investigated and told me he found what I said he would but the story got "killed" by someone in management, where and who I don't know.

It was dormant for a while when I got a call about the Carter school issue.

I took what I knew about costs of schools to the commission at the request of Commissioner Bud Armstrong as he was pushing for a new Carter Elem. During one Commission Mtg. about school costs and schools I have built... Dale Smith basicly called me a liar in a public meeting by saying none of what I had said was true and claiming that PBA bid everything as a matter of policy. This was in 2009...I then went from irritated to mad. I focused on helping the Carter community get what Ragsdale had promised them in 2006, a new school.

Being a businessman I had to cope with the recession while helping with the Carter issue; so I didn't have the time to investigate PBA/HVA contract issues myself until January, at which time I made an open records request and found the proof I knew was there...it is posted at focuspublicrecords.com and my motives are to simply clear my name...what I said PBA did on HVA they did, the proof is there, posted for you to see.

That is the story, I don't know what the best way to fix the PBA issue is, that is up to the commission, city council, mayors and state legislators to do or not do. I told Mike Hammond, if this process PBA used on HVA is acceptable, fine, tell the taxpayers that is what you believe and why and stop lying to them.

I don't think the taxpayers will accept such an explanation and I don't think he does either.

We will see what they do or don't do.

The above is the a summation of the facts...if I have let my emotions come through too strongly and offended anyone I apologize. I am a construction manager not a politician. I don't understand politics. I can see why government doesn't understand small business, because small business sure doesn't understand them.

Thank you for reading this and I hope you will make your decisions about what is best for Knox COunty, PBA's etc based upon these facts and not whether my methods have entertained you or rubbed you the wrong way. The issue and facts should speak for themselves at this point.

The two best places to get the story in whole are:

(link...) and on the left is a list of past papers in PDF form...go to last weeks paper for best summary

wwwfocuspublicrecords.com and wade through the documents, I have made an outline summary which will follow you through if you print them and follow along.

Guys, I am about burned out over this. I have done the heavy lifting, the proof is there in black and white. If the commission or mayor don't do something to fix it I have done all I can do.

I have put in 14 hours today...I gotta crash.

Thanks,

Sandy

That exchange last night wasn't as helpful as I'd hoped it would be. It left me with these questions:

1) Metulj, reading between the lines as to your obversation that TN has more PBAs than any other state, is it your suspicion that this situation arose because too many local government leaders were/are intent on enabling greater cronyism in the bidding processes they followed to construct public buildings? Can you suggest any other possible rationale for TN having pursued this PBA model so heavily?

2) Along the same lines, Crawfish, I would like to hear any rationale for our PBA being exempt from Knox County Procurement guidelines, too. Mike, why, then, is it desirable that PBA avoid this "red tape laden" process followed by other KC departments?

3) Reform4, on the basis of that text in TCA, it looks like PBA could adopt an open bid process, but has chosen not to. That's curious to me, too, but I know too little about the mechanics of these alternative processes allowed in law--RFPs and RFQs--to allege that following the alternative processes is necessarily a "recipe for waste and fraud," so I'd like to understand them better.

I'd also like to understand better what obligation, if any, PBA has to submit to and share with us any financial audits. I don't see any at their site.

Sandy Loy's posts left me with so many unanswered questions, I should ask them of him in a separate post...

And Toby, Crawfish, Steve: Please don't mistake my questions here for some sort of challenge of your posts last night.

I have no opinion whatsoever as to whether PBA should be reformed, abolished, or left alone--it's just an entity about whose operations I'd like to understand better.

Slapshot, I'm still parked here in "square one," waiting for someone who understands PBA more fully than I to explain to me the mechanics of these alternatives to competitive bidding, namely the RFP and RFQ processes, allowed in state law.

Persumably, it was one of these two alternative processes that was followed in what we agree was a very costly project at HVA.

Before I assume that the alternative process, RFP or RFQ, was the DIRECT CAUSE of HVA being costly, though, I'd like to:

1) understand how each alternative process works in practice, and

2) understand whether any circumstances other than the RFP or RFQ process used may have also impacted final costs for HVA.

Does that sound to you like a thorough, fair-minded approach to the inquiry we can make here?

Tamara, you must not have looked very hard to find audits. On the PBA home page is a section called "Financial News." Click on it, and there are links to the last three comprehensive financial reports, which contain determinations by the independent auditing firm, Baker Howard & Co. The firm did not issue findings of wrongdoing during the past three years.

Duly scolded, Scott. I'll look now...

Although Mr. Loy certainly has a personal interest in this legislation, I have followed his presentations and he certainly isn't asking for any kind of sweetheart deal- only that the system be opened to competition by firms like his, to have a level playing field. The kind of competition and bidding he is pushing for is an open process, so I believe he is trying to do the right thing for his community.

Steve (or Sandy), I meant to ask you earlier: Why is the present system NOT open to firms like Construction Plus?

It would seem that either the RFP or the RFQ process Scott described would be open to them?

I did catch Sandy's disclosure that at one time his sister was married to either Mike Moyers or Mike Ragsdale (I wasn't clear to which), but Moyers ceased to be our county law director, what, five plus years ago and Ragsdale's term is now over, too.

Even if there had existed some conflict in this regard previously, isn't Construction Plus now free to submit RFPs/RFQs for jobs?

Or maybe I should ask that question more broadly: Who are these "firms like his" who believe they are presently precluded from submitting RFPs/RFQs, and why do they think this? Are there firms out there that have been routinely rejected with inadequate explanation as to why?

In short, on what basis do you (and/or Sandy) allege that PBA does not afford firms "a level playing field?"

Background, please?

I believe the reason the state approved the concept of PBA's operating outside of the usual govenrment rules was to save money and speed up projects.

As to how they operate today/bidding etc....in all honesty I left PBA more than 8 years ago and it was different time and environment. I don't honestly feel qualified to answer. (Yes,I am aware that doesn't usually stop me. Go figure.)

Tamara, I can submit on these PBA projects, I choose not to at this point because I don't want my mission here to appear to be self serving as you have inaccurately accused me of.

Sandy, if you feel you can submit on these PBA projects, then Steve mischaracterized your complaint.

He said you are asking, and I quote, "that the system be opened to competition by firms like (yours)." If that's not what you're asking, he misspoke.

And neither have I accused you of being self-serving. My observation was simply that ANY local construction management company owner is probably not the person who can most effectively level allegations of the sort you have leveled against PBA.

That's the same occupational handicap Brad Mayes is running up against, as owner of a mulch production business challenging NRR.

It's also the same occupational handicap Jon Lawler was running up against, as a private developer previously engaged in leading construction efforts for TYP.

I'm acknowledging here the potential for static in the messages of these three particular speakers, given their occupations. I'm not impugning the character of the speakers themselves.

See the difference?

Anyway, I appreciate that you've stripped from your comments here that shrill, partisan tone you'd adopted in your last few Focus columns I read and I'm now listening to you more closely because of it.

We're not adversaries, you and I. Can we move on?

Scott, what I meant was you got conned. I can take a napkin and write "car title" on it but that doesn't make it a car title. If you will read my article and the info at focuspublicrecords.com you will see that the budget wasn't set until 12-07! 18 months after breaking ground.

The RFP/RFQ process is not competitive bidding as you explained. You can't bid scope that is undefined. This is NOT the way public money should be spent. Which is why Knox County purchasing has to follow public bid rules of opening bids in front of the bidders.

If you believe PBA competitively bid HVA you were fooled becuase they didn't. The contract for mechanical and electrical was executed with "TO BE DETERMINED" in the amount line and the scope was "to be provided". That is not competitvely bid...that is an interview process based on a resume as you stated.

My point is that why is there one set of rules for Hugh Holt's department and another for PBA?

Mike COhen stated above that the PBA was created to allow them to circumvent the procurement rules. He used to work there. This summarizes it all. Why do we have rules if we have to write a law to allow certian people to circumvent the rules? The rules either make sense or they don't. We either need them or we don't.

RFP/RFQ's are fine for private work by people spending their own money. When government spends other people's money they should be required to use a true competitive bid process.

I don't know why people continue to argue PBA did bid the work at HVA out when the proof that they used the RFP/RFQ process is posted at (link...) in black and white. They wrote change orders up to 18 months after the school opened for goodness sakes.

If you folks believe this process is kosher consider this...someone builds a house for you...they send you a bill 18 months after you move in and you are expected to just pay it wihtout questions, is that ok? They give the contracts to people they like and tell you after the fact how much they will be paid...that a problem?

Tamara, I can submit on these PBA projects, I choose not to at this point because I don't want my mission here to appear to be self serving as you have inaccurately accused me of. Now that I have exposed all this, if the PBA runs a project and I were to submit on it and they get to choose who they use based upon a subjective decision do you think I will be selected? Let's face it, if I wanted to get work from PBA I would be playing the game everyone else is playing with them.

But frankly I am not going to capitulate and operate outside what i consider to be fair and open standards of professional practice. You can go to my website and review my code of ethics which I am sworn to as a CCM through the CMAA. Or go to (link...) now you can scoff or poke fun of that and say whatever you want, but we are genuinely commited to those ethics and that is fact.

I can't write change orders 18 months after the fact and honor that code. It is just that simple.

The fact that Scott thinks that the budget on HVA was met proves how little he has read of the material I have posted. If you start out with a budget of $30mm, which was reasonable for a school such as HVA, and spend $50mm, saying the budget is $50mm is misleading and an insult to the intelligence of the Knox County taxpayers.

Not that Tamara needs anyone to defend her, but I completely agree with her assessment of Mr. Loy's articles for The Knoxville Focus. I read The Focus every week and enjoy it. I think quite often there is more information on the "back story" than any other publication, inculing The Sentinel.

Unfortunately, I stopped reading Mr. Loy's column sometime ago. It has veered off into a partisan discussion on more than one occasion. I also question how often one can write the same thing over and over again and expect people to read it, My own guess is, as Tamara pointed out, people "shut down" and ignore it.

While I certainly would agree there are some valid questions regarding the PBA that require answers, I don't think it merits a weekly discourse in any publication. The Focus is becoming more and more interesting and I suspect a monthly column would serve the same purpose and perhaps more people would pay attention to it.

You folks are hilarious. Tamara and Knoxcatlady (one and the same) has there ever been a sin commited by Ragsdale, Arms or VanDeVate that you didn't cover up, defend, justify or protect?

Everyone on here knows you are a Ragsdale, Arms, DVD water carrier! And you are the one practicing rhetoric! Loy's posted his proof...where is something to show us your work? Oh I forgot you just like to yip yap.

How about doing some work and get us some proof that what Loy has said isn't factual. Barker doesn't really remember but....that don't get it Scott, show us some PROOF!!! Your just pissed that Loy found what you missed!

And Cohen has yet to answer the post where Loy pointed out what Cohen has refused to read.

And lastly, TS/KCL do you think Steve Hunley cares two twits whether you read the Focus? LOL This PBA issue has gotten enough traction now that you elitists are embarressed to be 2 years behind!!!! I love it!

My point is that why is there one set of rules for Hugh Holt's department and another for PBA?

I guess that question is probably rhetorical, Sandy, but...my understanding is that because a large volume of change orders is inherent in any construction project, which is a concern with which Hugh Holt's department doesn't contend, the RFP process is better suited to "bidding" construction projects.

Is this the reason PBA uses the RFP process?

If so, is the volume of change orders generally produced in the couse of completing the county's construction projects larger than the norm?

If so, why might that be and how could we reduce that volume?

(These aren't rhetorical questions--I don't know their answers.)

I'm not Knoxcatlady, Mr. Doggentleman, nor (to my knowledge) do I know the lady.

I post under my own name here and under my husband's name, Dennis Shepherd, at KNS (only because he established that KNS account and we would need to set up a second e-mail address in order to establish a second KNS account under my name).

I frequently sign my name to my posts at KNS.

I don't participate in any other forums.

Nor am I Tamara Shepherd. While I don't always agree with Ms. Shepherd, I find that she tries to comment on issues in a civil and productive way.

As a retired educator and seventy-eight years of age, I don't suppose my own opinion means much, but will state it here and there nonetheless.

Ladies first, I appreciate your comments and have tried to learn from them. I hope you both noted my comments at the close of an earlier post where I apologized for my emotions sometimes getting the best of me.

I value your comments whether you are 8 (age of my granddaughter) or 78 (age of my Mother). I know that sometimes I have gotten irritated during the Ragsdale years; which grew to a crusendo when he left my sister after 21 years of marriage while she had cancer. That made it hard to watch him use the PBA to do his "bidding", pun intended.

Gentleman, I also value your thoughts and appreciate your desire to explain what I have tried too. You have probably done a better job than I did hopefully.

I have no doubt that the PBA law needs to be amended to work better in 2010 and better protect the way our tax dollars are spent. We simply can't afford to waste money and we need to provide equal opportunity for these contracts to all citizens, not just those with "connections".

Knox Cat Lady, I understand your thoughts about the recurring theme of the articles...but also please consider that this is an extremely complicated issue which is hard for people to get.

I have written the repetitive articles to hopefully get the message across in some level of detail that people can get their arms around. Even people in my industry get confused by construction management (CM) because there are people out there trying to take advantage of this confusion for profit; so they promote confusion. Those so inclined nearly fatally wounded the profession before it really got started in the 80's.

As a young profession CM is just now being standardized with accredidations which are recognized internationally...i.e. the CCM certification, recognized by ANSI. For comparison, the International Building Code is being adopted across the country at state. and local levels...showing the theme of an international flavor in which the industry is heading.

That said, it is a tough sell in a market where this concept is in the pioneering stages. People resist this sort of change in an industry as deeply rooted as construction. The CM methodology chosen can singularly make a project succeed or fail...therefore accurate knowledge of the differences is crucial to the correct methodology being implemented; so understanding the factual realities of each is critical.

I hate to see private owners get fooled and suffer the results of a bad decision...but it is their money...I just know public money shouldn't be put up to that level of risk until the industry becomes better stabilized and standardized; so the ability to make a good decision with public dollars at risk is a realistic expectation.

I know that is an abstract answer, but in the end the repeated theme articles have not been written for any reason other than getting the message out and trying to answer the questions I keep getting. The later of which tell me the CM/PBA/bid/negotiate/RFP/RFQ issues are still misunderstood.

Mr. Loy, thank you for your kind comments. My own comments were not intended to be personal nor were they an attack of any sort. From what I know of the process, I would agree with much of what you've said. My only point was perhaps you should consider going to a monthly format in The Focus as a weekly reiteration of the same thing likely does your own cause more harm than good.

I also think you are quite wise to try and control your emotions on the subject. When we lose control of our emotions, it never fails to diminish the effectiveness of one's own argument. I know how hurtful it must have been to you and your family with regard to your sister. I met Mrs. Ragsdale once and found her a charming and sweet person. I hope she is entirely recovered, happy and healthy now.

I believe Knoxcatlady lives in south Knoxville; Tamara in Powell. If they're the same person she not only has a split personality; she's got a split body.

Sandy, I suggest that if you have evidence of fraud or corruption regarding HVA you turn that evidence over to the TBI, state attorney general or state comptroller. They have authority like subpoena powers that no newspaper or private citizen has.

At the risk of redundancy, I will say again that PBAs are creations of state government and are governed by state law. It was formed by the city and county but its ultimate authorization comes from state law. PBA must follow the procedures outlined in the enabling legislation in TCA that Tamara conveniently posted above (basically, they have to get bids for anything $10K to $1M, and must use bids, RFPs or RFQs for anything above $1M). If PBA were to follow county purchasing rules (or city purchasing rules, for that matter), it could open itself up to lawsuits alleging it did not follow state law.

Also, an admittedly quick glance at the county procurement code, which is available on the finance department page of the county website, shows that it allows for bidding, RFPs and RFQs, just like state PBA law does (actually, unlike the PBA statute it allows the use of RFPs for projects under $1M). In fact, the county code allows for "noncompetitive negotiations" if competitive negotiations (the result of an RFP) aren't feasible, as determined by the finance and purchasing directors. Forcing PBA to follow county rules, even if legally advisable, wouldn't eliminate the use of RFPs.

BTW, I am in no way defending PBA or saying it should or shouldn't be abolished or reformed. Just explaining why it doesn't follow county rules - it's governed by state law.

Aside from Sandy's assertion that PBA isn't following the rules (which is serious, don't get me wrong), is the primary objection that PBA uses RFPs on construction projects?

We should let Sandy answer that question, I guess, but that's what I'm hearing him say.

Your observation that RFPs allow contractors more flexibility and more creativity touches on another objection we're hearing from some quarters as to how the school system, in particular, approaches building its facilities.

Some people are recently objecting to the school system's following a "design-build" methodology, their objection being that it causes KCS to "reinvent the wheel" with every new project. They're advocating more of a "cookie cutter" approach to school construction, instead.

I wonder, then, if KCS (and other county entities?) were to move away from a "design-build" methodology, would they then have less need to use this RFP process to collect "bids?"

(I'm not sure I'd like to see "cookie cutter" schools, personally, I'm just trying to understand whether there's some cause-and-result relationship between the open-ended manner in which KCS approaches new school construction and the bid collecting process it subsequently utilizes to get started.)

Would the architectural design of SY have translated to the HVA site and meet KCS's current needs?

I hear you, and my own (unqualified) thought would be "not likely."

But again, do you suppose there's some cause-and-result relationship between KCS's "design-build" methodology and their subsequent use of RFPs to begin a given project?

(Not that I necessarily share Steve's and Sandy's objection to RFPs just yet.)

Anyone who wanted to understand this now has to read through so much information it isn't worth it.

Cause it's always better to decide what you think based on as little info as possible.

Piffle.

(Apologies for the dbl-post. I was interrupted by a phone call.)

...here? Um, there aren't any "public records" in it.

There are seven files there, in which the following documents may be viewed:

1. An excerpt from an e-mail a "legislative attorney" sent Loy citing her discovery of instruction she believes requires competitive bids in the state's construction of schools, followed by Loy's own commentary on that statute.

2. A copy of Loy's four-page letter to Knox County Commissioners and "state representatives" in which he objects to the contents of a letter Dale Smith sent the same parties in response to an earlier letter Loy sent those parties (was that clear?).

3. A list of documents relating to construction at HVA which Loy says will be/were discussed in his Focus column...but not the documents themselves.

4. A copy of Loy's "open records" request to PBA in which he solicits 37 items relating to construction at HVA.

5. A second list of documents relating to construction at HVA (differing slightly from the list enumerated above as "3") which Loy says will be/were discussed in his Focus column...but not the documents themselves.

6. A third list of documents relating to construction at HVA (IDENTICAL TO the list enumerated above as "3) which Loy says will be/were discussed in his Focus column...but still no documents themselves.

7. (Inoperable link)

Where's the beef?

Below is the first document in the "Focus Public Records" file, namely the e-mail from that "legislative attorney," citing instruction in Title 49, "Education," which guides education matters generally:

Below is a Copy of an email from a legislative attorney just for clarity on the issue:

From: Sally Swaney
Subject: Look what I just found under 49-2-203

This section is dealing with construction of school buildings which utilize a construction manager: 49-2-203(a)(3)(C0 (C) Construction work that is under the coordination and oversight of a construction manager shall be procured through competitive bids.

So first what you are asking for is already the law (just in a different section of the code) - if this wasn't happening then someone is violating the law (seems to me)...

Meanwhile, here is instruction in Title 12, "Public Property, Printing, and Contracts." which enables and guides PBAs specifically:

12-10-122. Application of other laws to authority — Compliance with contract requirements — Agreements concerning interest rates. —

(a) Neither this chapter nor anything herein contained shall be construed as a restriction or limitation upon any powers which an authority, as a public corporation, might otherwise have under any laws of this state, but shall be construed as cumulative of any such powers. No proceedings, notice or approval shall be required for the organization of the authority or the issuance of any bonds or any instrument as security therefor, except as herein provided, any other law to the contrary notwithstanding; provided, that nothing herein shall be construed to deprive the state and its governmental subdivisions of their respective police powers over properties of the authority, or to impair any power thereover of any official or agency of the state and its governmental subdivisions which may be otherwise provided by law. Projects may be acquired, purchased, constructed, reconstructed, improved, bettered and extended and bonds may be issued under this chapter for such purposes, notwithstanding that any other general, special or local law may provide for the acquisition, purchase, construction, reconstruction, improvement, betterment and extension of a like project, or the issuance of bonds for like purposes, and without regard to the requirements, restrictions, limitations or other provisions contained in any other general, special or local law.

That latter instruction in Title 12, which guides PBAs specifically, had one too many caveats for me to follow it easily.

Is your read that PBAs may or may not ignore instruction in Title 49, cited by Ms. Swaney???

The files at (link...) are in PDF packages, each one contains several files and each file has several pages. There are dozens of files there not 9, there are 9 packages...over 50 pages of documents...you just have to click you r way through them, the outlines are a tool to help lead through them so you don't have to search for the information I reference.

Tamara, please don't post something erroneous until you spend the time looking at what is really there.

...and to passers-by I (innocently) misinformed.

The problem was on my end and I can now see the document packages Sandy references.

Please carry on.

Sandy, a couple of questions concerning the document at "Focus Public Records" entitled "State comptroller’s clarification of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 49-2-203 (a)(3)(C):"

Why was this legal question directed to the state comptroller, rather than to the state attorney general?

Since it was directed to the state comptroller, why is his response not on his official letterhead?

In previous state attorney general opinions I've read (but I have not before read any state comptroller opinion), the official response first restated the question submitted, then answered it. Why does this official response not follow that same format?

Why is the official response not signed?

Also, Dale Smith's response to commissioners/state representatives (at "Focus Public Records") says "PBA has never been and is not a CM...it hires CMs, architects, etc."

Since TCA 49-2-203(a)(3)(c) is applicable to CMs, which Smith says PBA is not, is it the case that this "state comptroller's clarification" would not apply to PBA directly, only to the CMs that it hires?

(Unless, of course, we were to find that it doesn't apply even to them, by virtue of the instruction for PBAs in Title 12, posted above?)

I lost a lot of time yesterday, rereading comments on the PBA thread, combing their site, and EVENTUALLY poring over all those docs Sandy posted at the Focus site (I truly couldn't read them earlier on).

I initially brought a prejudice against Sandy to this conversation due to the biased tone and repetitive nature of his expose in the Focus.

After all this review I've undertaken over the last two days, though, I DO understand his objection to what looks like poor oversight of the HVA project.

But why did all these problems arise and, more importantly, what's the fix?

If PBA were to be abolished tomorrow, could we then depend on in-house project managers within the various county departments, who ARE able to employ this same RFP process, to cap project costs and ensure a "level playing field" among firms interested in performing the work? I don't know.

Or, if PBA stayed around, and some amendment to their enabling legislation were adopted to end their use of the RFP process, could we then assume that PBA's utilizing a strict competitive bid process would cap costs and ensure a "level playing field?" I don't know that, either, because it still isn't clear to me what happens when too many client change orders push costs up beyond the amount of the bid the project manager accepts.

Or was it possibly the HVA client, the school system, whose apparently high volume of change orders necessitated a bass-ackwards process of "build now, budget later?" No one's even suggested yet that that may be the case...

With due regard for Sandy's effort to expose problems in the HVA project, I just don't know where to point the finger.

I hope that everybody previously engaged on this thread doesn't dissappear, and that we can continue investigating exactly what it is that should be fixed?

Tamara, please remember that RFPs are just as competitive as bids. The difference is scope.

Also understood.

The matter I'm still NOT understanding, though (and which I've twice asked about here), is what happens under a strict competitive bidding process when the project manager accepts a bid, then too many change orders later cause the bidder's costs to exceed those s/he originally expected to incur?

Under a strict competitive bidding process, does this hapless subcontractor "eat" the cost overruns or does the project manager (PBA) absorb them?

Under a RFP process, does such a hapless subcontractor "eat" the cost overruns or does the project manager (PBA) absorb them?

How does the selection method for subcontractors used by the project manager--competitive bidding versus RFP--determine which party "eats" cost overruns?

Or is the selection method for subcontractors even a determinant in who "eats" cost overruns?

(Gotta run. Interested in checking back here later today.)

I guess I'll "get it" if and when anybody ever gets around to answering my question, which was (for the fourth time): How would a competitive bid process preclude problems of the sort that plagued the HVA project?

Sandy, per TCA on competitive bidding, I don't see that the low bid necessarily wins. It says "the authority shall award the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder whose bid meets the requirements and criteria set forth in the invitation to bid." Sounds like some wiggle room to me?

Steve, your complaint that the RFP up at PBA's site now has a "subjective and hidden scoring system" is certainly valid, but it's also illegal under the TCA excerpt I already shared. That's not some problem inherent in a RFP.

And I don't know how many times or how many ways I can ask for one of you to please explain to me how a competitive bidding process would better control cost overruns relating to change orders, or would cause that GMP to be established any earlier, but those questions are genuine. I thought both those matters were addressed in some contract subsequent to the selection of subcontractors? If so, how would the manner in which a subcontractor was selected impact on these contractual details?

Since I've asked you the same questions over and over and you remain mute, I'm beginning to suspect your unwillingness to answer me.

And let me reiterate that I DID review all those documents and I DO agree there's a problem.

I'm just not sure a competitive bidding process would remedy all of it (or any of it).

Steve said: "And I'm not sure how doing nothing is a remedy either."

I don't advocate doing nothing. I think there's a problem that needs to be remedied.

Since TCA allows PBA to choose subcontractors other than the absolute lowest bidder under either a competitive bid or a RFP process, why should we imagine they'd begin choosing the absolute lowest bidder under a competitive bid process?

Similarly, since TCA requires PBA to establish objective, weighted criteria at the front end of either their competitive bid or their RFP processes, and since we see that they are NOT doing that with regard to their RFP process now, why should we imagine they'd be any more transparent with a competitive bid process?

If my understanding is correct that this problem of PBA absorbing an excessive volume of change orders at HVA was NOT one related to how subcontractors were selected, but rather with how their contracts were subsequently negotiated, how would altering the method by which contractors were selected solve the problem?

Same question with regard to this problem of a GMP for the HVA project having been established far too late in the process. Was that a problem rooted in how subcontractors were selected, or was that a problem rooted in how their contracts were subsequently negotiated?

My thought is to determine here what appears to be cause, versus what appears to be effect.

So why launch some tedious, protracted effort to secure a resolution from Knox County Commissioners to in turn urge state legislators to amend procurement guidelines in statute, all to likely impotent effect?

It doesn't look like they're following existing law, so it doesn't seem likely they'd follow amended law, either.

Why not instead report what Sandy's found to the state attorney general and the TBI, as Scott advised, and see if we can't make them follow the law, any law?

I'll sign on.

Well, I went out on a limb there, didn't I?

All I mean to suggest is that I think an exhaustive investigation of PBA's practices is in order before concluding that we know how those practices should be altered.

And "in the light," as Slapshot suggests.

I want to clear up a couple of things. First, my suggestion about going to authorities is conditional upon there being evidence of fraud. Suspicion of fraud is not the same as evidence. Allegations of mismanagement are not the same as evidence of fraud. Anyone who takes that step would be wise to know the difference and have their ducks in a row.

Second, while I haven't issued or responded to an RFP, I've seen enough of them in the course of my work to know that they can be written with a specific contractor in mind. I've seen a few. It's a tough one to prove, though. The RFPs now on the PBAs website don't appear to be written to favor a particular contractor. However, the omission of the criteria weights does appear to not comply with TCA. A quick phone call to Dale Smith or the city (it's a city project - Bill Lyons would know or direct you to the best person to answer) could get an explanation. A visit to a PBA board meeting to voice concerns might yield an answer too.

Third, slapshot, if you think KNS needs to do a series of stories, I would suggest contacting Mike Donila. He covers county government. I'm not a reporter anymore (a development I'm sure Sandy applauds) and in my job I have no authority over news coverage. Donila is a good, dogged reporter who ain't from around here. Maybe he will see something I didn't when I was a reporter.

Fourth, competitive bids are not as cut and dried as many think. The winning bid must be responsive, which is determined by the agency. Sometimes an agency determines the lowest bid is not the most responsive. Obviously, there's less leeway in competitive bidding than in requests for proposals, but don't think for an instant that an agency can't opt for a bid that isn't the lowest.

Fifth, pointing out the benefits of using RFPs is not the same as defending a particular agency's use of them. Any process can be abused. Anyone who confuses this with an unqualified endorsement of PBA at the direction of others is either grossly misinformed or paranoid.

You guys have been busy today while I was riding my bike with my granddaughter.

You can't legislate morality...but you can cut the cards.

Public bid standards have been used for decades and are understood by the industry. Everyone sees the bids opened. It is transparency we are after not perfection.

If someone is disqualified everyone knows why and the eliminated party may appeal with knowledge of all the bids. Anything done in private is at risk of human nature taking over and favoritism coming in.

The sunshine law is the same principal. It doens't eliminate people conspiring or talking in private but if they get caught it is clearly illegal and punishable.

TRANSPARENCY....not perfection...but let's stop planting corn and acting surprised when it sprouts! You know...you reap what you sow...you allow people to spend other people's money without strict management and you will get what you deserve...i.e. paying double for a school.

T, you asked about change orders...and yes they will always be an issue no matter what the process. Change orders in each process are handled and evaluated differently but the difference is this.

In a bid situation the scope is well defined by comeplete drawings BEFORE the bids are taken and a contract executed...change orders are for owner additions or deductions or drawings errors and ommissions.

In a design-build situation true change orders don't occur until after the scope of work is final and the price is set...BEFORE that happenes the scope is fluid as is the price...it requires a trust relationship with the contractor to provide fair and accurate cost data during this time of fluidity. That is why it is not transparent...as with HVA the price can go up 33% with no real accountability in a public manner.

After the price and scope are set the change order process is no different. It is the time between the SELECTION of a contractor in the RFP process and the time a price is set that the public's money is being managed with no public eye on the process. Selecting the contractor through the RFP process is only PART of the problem....the biggest part is the waste inherent to public dollars being spent as the project is defined with no public scrutiny.

In private practice the owner is watching because it is his money... in public projects it isn't the PBA or IDB's money...it is easier to spend it when it isn't coming out of your pocket.

I hope this helps explain why the public private issue is the key issue.

I do know for a fact that PBA does fair competitive bids. I am not sure about the property development side but the property management side is very open about there bid process. I believe PBA has saved the county and city a lot of money over the years.The county taking back the libraries was political and cost the county more money. PBA does turned any unused money at the end of a fiscal year back over to the city and county.