Meeting in closed session on the heels of recent revelations that staff had materially misrepresented the extent of issues with Humboldt Made’s proposal to provide marketing services for the city, the Eureka City Council voted this evening to direct the city manager to negotiate the $370,000 annual contract with the other finalist, Eddy Alexander, based in Virginia.
The closed session decision — which City Attorney Bob Black said was reached by general consensus — comes amid serious questions about the city’s request for proposals process that had led to staff’s recommendation to award the contract to Humboldt Made. On May 21, the city council went against that recommendation and instead voted to have both finalists interviewed by a new review panel appointed by the mayor that was to include at least one council member and marketing experts.
But that panel interview never took place as revelations about errors with Humboldt Made’s initial proposal — and how they were misrepresented to the public and the council — consumed the process. Black took on reviewing the issues and told the Journal he planned to report his findings to the council this evening, as well as applicable law, under a closed session agenda item listed as “significant exposure to litigation.”
“The legal standard that we’re looking for is did it give one proposer a competitive advantage and, if so, the irregularity would not be considered a minor matter,” Black told the Journal on Friday. “It would put it out of bounds for a waiver.”
The city issued a request for proposals for the marketing contract back in February, severing decades-long ties with the Eureka-Humboldt Visitors Bureau, and set a proposal deadline of April 5. The RFP required interested firms to submit both print and digital copies of their proposals by the deadline, warning that submittals that weren’t timely or complete “shall” be rejected.
Staff initially indicated that Humboldt Made submitted an incorrect draft of its print proposal and the correct draft of its digital proposal by the deadline, with the sole issue with the incorrect copy being a duplicate page that took the place of another page. Humboldt Made was allowed to resubmit the print proposal, staff said, on April 8, the next business day.
But after a Journal inquiry led to Black’s review last week, the city’s administrative staff found that Humboldt Made had not in fact submitted a correct digital copy of the proposal before the deadline and that corrections in the resubmitted print copies were far more extensive than staff had originally represented.
Because the contract in question is for more than $100,000 in city funds, the city’s procurement policy states that the city council is the sole entity with the power to waive “irregularities” in the bid process. Tonight, the council voted not to waive the irregularities and thus to reject Humboldt Made’s proposal. In a separate vote, the council then directed City Manager Greg Sparks to move forward with negotiating the contract with the other finalist, Eddy Alexander.
Both votes will come back before the council in open session on June 18 in the form of resolutions.
Related Stories
This article appears in Iftar: Breaking the Ramadan Fast and Bringing a Muslim Community Together.
Closed Session? Skulking behind closed doors to cover up the traces of their dirty deal, while fobbing the blame off onto unnamed – and conveniently unaccountable – “staff”.
Corruption remains “Humboldt Made”
This frustrates me no end. I understand the decision had to be made because it appears process wasn’t followed by what looks to be the natural choice to promote Humboldt, a HUMBOLDT group. Instead, we’ll be relying on someone in Virginia to entice visitors to an area that few outsiders ‘get’. Unless Eddy Alexander is a Humboldt ex-pat, I have no faith in our area getting the cheerleader we deserve.
I’m very disappointed that the #cityofeureka was persuaded by #internettrolls who forced them to default this marketing contact to a organization who clearly doesn’t want the public to know their marketing strategy in the #eurekaRFP adding to which another disconnect in this very fragile community. I would rather see this money allotted to local businesses to help them promote Eureka.
I don’t know anyone from Humboldt Made and I’ve only been in Humboldt for 19 of my 42 years and won’t likely reside here forever, but this was a case of not ‘seeing the forest through the trees’ in many ways. I just visited my old college town in northern coastal Washington that was much like Humboldt at one point. It’s now a gentrified upscale town due to actions like this (I got artisanal cocktails at my old dive bar and $80 Indian food). I’ve been on both sides of RFPs (government and consultant) and mistakes are made across the board and things like this happen frequently. Some laxity is often given to smaller firms or local firms where no official DBE process is in place. I realize that it is a slippery slope and we must be careful and I agree we should have ethical and professional standards, but from what I could see NCJ really spun the facts and exacerbated the situation. I saw no deliberate attempt to hurt the county…no gross negligence…no circus. I almost felt like I was watching an abusive parent talk down to a child or watching a bully in action. I know Humboldt needs money after the long string of boom/bust economy, but have a little faith in your local government and people please. No need to create “a story” just to sell the paper and get back at the guy that grabbed your parking spot or whatever is going on here. Again, no real interest in the situation other than a person that has lived through the government bid process and is sad that NCJ really through some local folks under the bus for some reason. I honestly got choked up reading it.