Proposals have to get certificates from Detroit Human Rights department saying whether they were Detroit based or headquartered.
DLZ had an issue with headquartered certificate- it was pulled after their proposal was submitted.
Memo from Daryl Latimer at DWSD to Gerard Phillips at Detroit Human Rights- requesting them to look into DLZ headquarter certification in 2006. Unusual because they are asking them to investigate something that has already been submitted.
Email from witness from May 17th 2006 to the Human Rights department- related to investigation of the DLZ headquarters. Asking what the status was because they needed to complete evaluation as quickly as possible to go forward.
Got a response from the Human Rights department, dated May 18th 2006, from Gerard Phillips to Daryl Latimer. Stating the the Detroit headquarter business (DHB) certificate given to them in early 2006 is effectively revoked as of February 2nd 2006 pending further review. In the interim period, DLZ does not have a status at the time. Victor Mercado is copied on the memorandum.
The timing is significant because proposals due in March 2006, part of the proposal is having a certificate. So there was no DHB for DLZ. Again, unusual because this happened after proposals made and DLZ was definitely at the time a Detroit-headquartered business.
Witness says he was told to draft the letter by supervisor Daryl Latimer of WSWD.
11:50AM DLZ was directly associated with number 1 ranked superior Engineering. The revoked certificate forced them out of the #1 ranking spot. The removal of the 35% weighting cost them the spot. Witness asked to use an average cost method to evaluate proposals. Compare the cost of all proposers to an average across the board. People closest to the average get the highest points and the ones on the fringe get the lowest points. Supervisor asked witness to do this in the middle of the proposal evaluation. Prior to using average cost method, witness had used comparing lowest cost of proposers and everyone's ranking fell under that.
Average cost method analysis- scoring sheets for 2014 using average cost method. Amongst the firms Visions Consultants, superior, EBI, Lakeshore, Inland and Detroit Program Management Joint Venture.
Using that method changed the whole ranking of proposers: Vision #7, EBI #5, Superior #3, Jenkins Walbridge #4, Inland Water #6, Detroit Management Team #1 (previously ranked #3), Lakeshore engineering #2 (#5 previously).
Witness says the average cost method did not make a lot of sense and if they had left it alone, "it would have been a better process".
CM 2015- scoring summary sheet for average cost method- sibling contract to 2014. Same firms. New rankings: Vision #7, EBI #5, Superior engineering #2 (down from #1), Jenkins #4, Lakeshore #3, Inland #6, Detroit Management #1. This has not taken the certification as of yet.
12:00PM A& H subcontractor to Lakeshore Engineering also had a certification issue. May 19th 2006 from witness to supervisor Daryl Latimer, Contracts and Grants Manager. With respect to contract 2015. Notation saying that "Previous to Reviewing Lakeshore's LED to A&H contractors". Establishing a point in time where witness had gone through analysis and up to receiving A & H contractors. A & H had indicated they were a Detroit headquartered business but had no certificate in their proposal. Human Rights department had no record of them so they got a zero.
Human Rights eventually showed that A & H was a Detroit-headquartered business.
Memo from Latimer to Mercado on May 19th 2006. In the memo, they were recommending that Detroit Management Team get contract from 2015. These results were from tally sheets- Detroit Program Management was joint venture of Detroit Consulting and Excel. Superior Engineering was ranked #2.
"Reward proposers closest to the average and penalize those who are either too high or too low." This was the rationale of the average cost summary of the proposers.
The highest ranking proposer had a higher cost than the one who had been previously selected. Superior engineering their cost was close to $14 million versus Detroit Management's close to $16 million.
12:11PM Memo from Daryl Latimer to Victor Mercado on May 25th 2006. On CM 2014- Note written that says "Revised per new A & H LED cert," This changed ranking: Detroit Program Management #1 and Superior #3.
When you have a proposer who wins 2 sister contracts, DWSD can award one to the first one and on the second one got to the next highest ranking proposer. CM 2015 was awarded first.
Memo June 28th 2006, related to contract CM 2015. Amount is $16,325,335.00 recommended amount for the contract. Recommending Detroit Management to get contract to the Board of Water Commissioners. It was approved June 28th 2006.
Letter to Board of Water Commissioners from Mercado on June 28th 2006 about CM 2014. $13,486,655 is recommended amount. Recommended to enter into contract with Lakeshore engineering. It was also approved by the board. Lakeshore had originally been ranked #5.
CM 2014 change order #1: $6,162,500. Million change to the original $13 million for Lakeshore. New total $19,649,000. May 17th 2007.
Change order #2 $4, 9 million
Change order #3 $15.4 million
New contract total: $39,970,260.08