A state audit found that University Place didn’t follow bidding laws when it built two projects worth a combined $640,000 at Town Center.
City officials say the findings cited in the report, which was released last month and covers 2007-08, highlight procedural mishaps that didn’t change the price or quality of the work.
The state agrees that the problems are relatively minor. Still, they reveal how local governments can overlook details when building a large development like the $250 million Town Center. Construction on the mix of retail, civic and other services is stalled while the city searches for developers who can carry out the plan.
The report cites two construction projects: a wall next to the project’s main thoroughfare, Market Place, and a tunnel that will connect Town Center’s southern end with an underground parking garage.
In each case, University Place made changes to the scope of the original plans. It decided to build a gabion wall to stabilize the area near Market Place and tunnel, something that wasn’t included in the original work.
The problem was University Place chose the same contractor — Puyallup-based Northwest Cascade — to perform the work without reopening the competition.
It should have put the project out to bid again among different contractors because the scope of the job had changed, according to the report.
University Place deputy city manager Steve Sugg said the city had two reasons why it didn’t put the project out to bid again.
The first is that officials didn’t believe the changes justified another bidding process. Second, bidding the project out again would have voided the warranty of the Market Place wall.
“We had nothing more to add to that project,” Sugg said. “None of those bid prices changed. The quantities didn’t change. The price didn’t change.”
“It’s a professional disagreement on the interpretation of the statutes as they’re written,” he added.
Still, at the suggestion of the Auditor’s Office, University Place instructed its staff to use a different approach – declaring a “special market condition” that allows it to keep the same contractor — the next time it changes plans.
The state also dinged UP for failing to provide proof that it even went through the bid process when it bought $247,703 worth of steel decking material for its future library and civic center building in 2008.
Sugg said the UP did go through the bid process, but the company it used for the process couldn’t provide the documentation. “Simply put, they haven’t been able to furnish the documents,” he said.
Both state and UP officials say the problems cited in the recent report can be fixed. The thing the problems can’t be: ignored.
“They still have to follow the law,” Auditor’s Office spokeswoman Mindy Chambers said of UP.
Brent Champaco: 253-597-8653
brent.champaco@thenewstribune.com
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.