Laserfiche WebLink
, <br />' Was Dan Berrey's RFP selected because he was a former Transit Board member? <br />LI <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />~ <br />' <br />, <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />~ <br />No. While he served on the Transit District Boazd of Directors, Berrey declared a <br />potential conflict of interest, had not participated in board discussions, and had not voted on <br />issues relating to the development of the Courthouse Square project. In addition, he would not <br />have learned anything specific to the project that ~vas not available to other recipients of the RFP. <br />Berrey resigned from the Transit District Board on May 2, 1996, one day after submitting a <br />proposal for development of Courthouse Square and two months before acceptance of his <br />proposal. <br />The selection of Berrey was done through an open and competitive RFP process. On the <br />day of the selection, only one of the two transit representatives on the 10 member selection <br />committee cast a vote. <br />The primary discussion by the committee in selecting Beney centered azound the fact that <br />his team, Arbuckle-Costic, Pence/Kelly and Berrey were all local firms. The other proposer was <br />from Canada, their architect was from Canada, and only their general contractor was local. The <br />committee felt that having local availability, avoiding costly travel to or from Canada and <br />keeping the money local was important as the committee was selecting a development team not a <br />development plan. <br />The minutes of the selection committee as well as the staff report to the Board of <br />Commissioners of August 20, 1996 clearly outline the process for retaining Berrey, as well as the <br />understanding "that negotiations with Berrey, dba Courthouse Square Inc., would not be <br />finalized until the fznancial feasibility of the project was determined. " <br />(Support information: Tabs 3, 4,12,14,16,1'n <br />' <br />