County Contract Process Unfazed by Long Scrutiny

Orange County is the only urban county in California that gives elected supervisors a central role in selecting contractors to perform government projects, and critics have long complained that the system gives lobbyists too much influence over who gets the lucrative work.

Some engineers, architects and community activists were encouraged a year ago when county officials began studying ways to improve the procurement process. But now, they are frustrated that the county has yet to propose new guidelines and fear officials have lost interest in reform.

“It seems like they just brushed it under the rug and have gotten back to business as usual,” complained Vic Opincar, head of a statewide engineers association and regional vice president of giant Boyle Engineering Corp. in Newport Beach.

County officials said Thursday that they are continuing to work on revisions to the policy and expect to complete work within two months. Progress was slowed recently as new supervisors took office and some top managers were shuffled as part of a reorganization, said county spokeswoman Diane Thomas.

Opincar’s group, Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California, as well as the Orange County Grand Jury and two citizens committees formed by the Board of Supervisors, have criticized the existing system and recommended that the county adopt contract rules already used by other government agencies.

*

In many cities and counties, staff members evaluate bids for specific jobs and recommend a top firm to elected officials, who either ratify or reject it. Under that system, backers say, lobbyists’ dollars are less likely to influence the process because they don’t raise campaign cash for staff members.

But in Orange County, staffers study the bids and provide the Board of Supervisors with a list of up to three finalists deemed qualified without ranking them in any order. Supervisors then make a final decision, often after lobbyists hired by the competing firms make their pitches.

Defenders of the process insist that it provides supervisors with relevant information and ensures that elected officials--not bureaucrats--control the selection of contractors. Critics, however, complain that it leaves companies little choice but to hire lobbyists, who sometimes hold campaign fund-raisers or contribute money to supervisors.

“It turns this into a political decision . . . made behind closed doors,” said Shirley Grindle, a campaign-finance reform advocate.

The county’s lobbying rules have been the subject of debate for years. But interest in reforms grew in the wake of the December 1994 bankruptcy. Investigations into the financial crisis revealed a so-called “pay to play” system in which Wall Street brokerage houses donated campaign funds to supervisors in expectation that the contributions would win them business.

Last January, the board approved a sweeping overhaul of its public financing policy that prohibits the county from awarding business to firms that contribute money to supervisors.

Reform advocates praised county Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier for crafting the rules and urged her to focus next on changing other county contracting guidelines. Two board-appointed commissions--the Privatization Task Force and Government Practices Oversight Committee--also recommended reform.

So last spring, Mittermeier instructed several county managers to begin meeting with engineers, architects and activists, as well as lobbyists, to discuss ways of improving the procurement system. The last meeting with reform advocates took place in July. “We haven’t heard a word since,” Grindle said.

County spokeswoman Thomas said a draft of revised guidelines has been completed and will be reviewed and possibly reworked by Mittermeier, Chief Financial Officer Gary Burton and other top officials.

“The goal is to make sure the final revisions work for everyone,” she added.

Grindle and others said they were encouraged by an April bid request by the county’s Integrated Waste Management Department seeking firms to study a possible sale of the landfill system.

The request included the statement: “Respondents, their agents and or associates shall refrain from contacting or soliciting the Board of Supervisors regarding this [request] during the selection processing. Failure to comply with this provision shall result in the disqualification of the respondent.”

Sue Gordon, spokeswoman for the department, said the language was added because of the sensitive nature of a landfill sale. “We wanted to be sure to be totally objective because we knew it would be controversial,” she said.

While several professional associations oppose the current procurement system, others defend it, including lobbyists and some community activists who believe nonelective staff members already have too much power.

*

Scott Hart, with the Newport Beach lobbying firm Ellis/Hart Associates, said the process rightly places contracting authority with elected supervisors.

“I can understand the perception that there is an evil political shroud over these decisions,” Hart said. “But on the other hand, county supervisors are elected by the taxpayers and have ultimate responsibility on how the budget is spent. I would hate to see them lose some of that discretion and authority to bureaucrats.”

Hart also said lobbyists provide the supervisors with useful information about the projects and offer a perspective different from what county staffers might give.

“I think the services the advocates provide is very useful,” he said. “The discussions are extremely helpful.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Different Plan

In the current process for awarding government contracts, county staffers review bids and provide the Board of Supervisors with a list of three “qualified” finalists without ranking them. The board then selects one, sometimes after meeting with lobbyists from the competing firms. Some architects and engineers have suggested a different system:

* Have a committee of county officials and public members rank the three top bidders

* If supervisors reject top-ranked firm, they must publicly state reason for decision

* All bidders must sign disclosure statements that no fees were paid to lobbyists

* Criteria for all bid evaluations should be stated publicly

Source: Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California

Researched by SHELBY GRAD/Los Angeles Times