Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Costello joined the meeting by phone. Mr. Costello explained the protest process, noting <br />that the Inspector General would check to see if 30B requirements were properly followed. If it <br />was determined that there was irregularity or non-compliance, it would likely be pursued in <br />Barnstable Superior Court by either the Inspector General or the bid protestor. Mr. Costello <br />indicated that Counsel for Recycling Solutions alluded that they were prepared to pursue further <br />measures, such as going to Court. The protest has been forwarded to the Inspector General by <br />Recycling Solutions. <br />Mr. Costello indicated that he was unaware that the Central Register ad was placed as a lease, <br />continuing that it was never his understanding that the site was to be leased since the Board had <br />no authority to do so, and that it was always intended as a reuse of the site. Mr. Costello <br />suggested that the confusion created by the ad would prompt the IG to look more closely at the <br />procurement process. Section 6 would have required that the proposals be opened publicly if it <br />was a leased procurement rather than a services procurement. The Chair confirmed that the <br />proposals were not opened publicly. Mr. Costello agreed that the Central Register document <br />created a level of confusion regarding the intent of the RFP. Mr. Richard stated that Weston & <br />Sampson placed the ad in the Goods & Services section of the Central Register, but that the <br />Register moved it to Real Estate Disposition, Mr. Costello stated that there was a significant <br />legal difference between a lease and a license and the Central Register should not have <br />advertised the contract as a lease. Mr. Scipione confirmed that all documents clarified that it was <br />not a lease, but the Central Register checked it off as a lease. <br />Mr. Scipione suggested the possibility that only one proposer would respond to a newly released <br />RFP and inquired about the process allowing the protest to play out. Mr. Costello stated that a <br />judge would be seeking non-compliance of 30B. All documents would be reviewed including <br />the Register identifying it as a lease and along with proposals not being opened publicly, could <br />be interpreted as non-compliance with 30B. The error made by the Register created ambiguity, <br />and Mr. Costello felt the cleaner process would be to reject all proposals and start over. Mr. <br />Costello stated that a new RFP could make it unequivocally clear that the proposal was not for a <br />lease. Mr, Goddard recommended that future advertising with the Register be made clear, <br />perhaps through Counsel, that it is not for lease and must be placed in goods and services. Mr. <br />Costello stated that the substance of the RFP was very clear, there was no mention of lease. Mr. <br />Costello also recommended another review of the consent to operate with Joint Base Cape Cod. <br />Mr. Tilton inquired whether previous bid documents would become public record, if the Board <br />entered a rebidding process. Mr. Costello stated if there was proprietary or confidential <br />information, according to the records statute, those portions could be redacted. Mr. Goddard <br />inquired about encumbered Executive Session minutes and Mr. Costello responded that all <br />minutes could remain encumbered until the purpose of the Executive Session ceased, once the <br />deliberations of the award of contracts had terminated. <br />Mr. Scipione inquired about 30B exemptions and Mr. Costello felt that they would not fall under <br />the exemption because the proposal allowed a private contractor to use the property, rather than <br />the municipalities using it for their own solid waste purposes. Mr. Scipione inquired whether <br />there was a process better than 30B to consider and Mr. Costello responded that if compensation <br />was being received, contracts would be subject to 30B. Mr. Scipione inquired about the <br />2 <br />