Tag: TEE Center

TEE Parking Deck Exclusive: Fred Wrestles, Augusta Gets Decked?

  By , ,
 
 

Augusta, GA

May 29, 2012

By Al Gray
 

Our team of community watchdogs at Augusta Today and CityStink.net have not let sleeping dogs lie with the TEE Center and Reynolds Street Parking deck deals that were conditionally approved by the Augusta Richmond County last February 7. Readers might recall that the Augusta Commission then approved a deal for Augusta Riverfront, LLC to manage the new Reynolds Street Parking Deck, contingent upon the land for the parking deck being deeded to the city land bank and being cleared of all liens. The decision was reached in a last-minute panic to get something passed to relieve the Commission of what was a very hot potato of an issue – how a $12 million parking deck got built on land the city didn’t own.

 

Has the land been deeded to the Land Bank and have the liens been released by Wells Fargo, the bank that holds the liens on the land under the Reynolds Street Parking Deck (RSPD)?

The answer is NO, according to review of the Augusta Richmond County Clerk of Court deeds of record for the property as reported on the Georgia Superior Court Clerk’s Cooperative Authority. The deeds on the GSCCA site are certified to be county-good through May 23, 2012.

Augusta Today and CityStink.net contributors, armed with documents secured via Georgia Open Records Act Requests, the city’s excellent on-line document archives, and the help of several officials inside Augusta government, have taken scrutiny of the proposed parking deck deals to unusual lengths to get the answers to more questions.

Were the contracts for management of the decks put out for bid? Yes.

The City Procurement Director issued Request for Proposals RFP Item #11-087, Managing Augusta Parking Facilities, in January 2011 with a due date for bids to be opened on Friday, February 18, 2011. That the RFP covers the RSPD and the Parking Deck at the Augusta Marriott is established in the Introduction Section I on page 10 of the RFP with, “The Procurement Department… is soliciting proposals to manage and operate the Augusta owned parking facilities located on Reynolds Street in Augusta to include the Parking Deck at the Augusta Marriott and the new Reynolds Street Parking Deck currently under construction.”

Was Augusta Riverfront, LLC the low-bidder? The LLC did not place a bid in response to RFP #11-087, covering the two Augusta owned parking decks between 9th and 10th streets in Augusta.

Augusta Riverfront did not appear as a party on the Pre-Proposal Conference Sign In Sheet of January 28, 2011. It does not appear on the Cumulative Evaluation Sheet. There is no indication that Augusta Riverfront, LLC submitted a bid of any type in response to RFP #11-08.

If another firm offered an acceptable bid, was it recommended and its proposal accepted? The bid of Ampco Parking Systems of Houston, Texas was recommended for acceptance, but all bids were rejected with the knowledge of the City Administrator. 

 

Mr. Richard Acree, Jr., Assistant Director of the Augusta Facilities Management Division wrote, “It is… my recommendation that we award the contract for Bid Item 11-087 to Ampco Parking Systems.” After an exchange of emails on August 5, 2011 between Augusta’s then Recreation Director Tom Beck, Procurement Specialist Nancy Williams, and Administrator Fred Russell, Mr. Beck wrote a letter to Ms. Williams on August 8 directing her to reject all bids associated with RFP #11-087.

 

Are there costly inconsistencies between the sample contract included in the RFP that Ampco Parking System accepted and the one with Augusta Riverfront, LLC that was recommended by the City Administrator for adoption by the City Commission? Apparently. They include:

1. Management Fee.

Ampco quoted a fee for the TWO Decks in the amount of $17,964.00. The fee in the management agreement in 3.1(see page 6) for the Reynolds Street Deck alone with the LLC is $25,000.00. After recovery of the $50,000 rental fee paid to Augusta under the Conference Center Deck agreement on page 3, the LLC gets another $25,000.00 fee.

There is a recommended contract in the RFP which appears to be largely based upon the previous conference center contract with Republic Parking. To be fair, the RFP agreement would have given the management company an incentive fee of 25% (up to 45% based upon increments of $100,000) of net revenues over $150,000 for both decks (page 33), while Augusta gets 100% of the RSPD net revenues, if there are any, with Augusta and the LLC management group sharing net revenues after the rental sum and $25,000.00 fee on the Conference Center Deck.

Why did the City Administrator agree to pay more fee on the RSPD than its recommended bidder quoted for TWO decks? 

2. Liability Insurance

The Deck RFP Addendum 1 stated, “Liability Insurance is to be paid out of the management fee.” However, the RSPD agreement in 9.4 on page 17 states, “Insurance premiums and any cost or expenses with respect to the insurance described in this Article shall be an Operating Expense of the RSPD.” Liability insurance is listed in the Article at 9.1.

Why did the conditionally awarded agreement with the LLC shift the liability insurance costs from the management firm to the city?

3. Operating Expense Limitations

The designated contract within Augusta’s RFP 11-087, page 32 of the RFP package, limits operating expenses to enumerated expenses and, “other expenses as authorized and included in an operating budget approved in advance by AUGUSTA.” This provision was accepted by Ampco. The agreement conditionally accepted by Augusta with the LLC contains no such requirement, broadly defining “operating expenses” outside of the Annual Plan to include, “any other expenses incurred in the operation of the RSPD that would be considered operating expenses under GAAP.” GAAP means Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

Why doesn’t the agreement with the LLC limit what can be considered an operating expense to those expenses enumerated in the Annual Plan and authorized by Augusta?

4. Expenses Allowed Under the Annual Plan

Ampco submitted a bid compliant with Augusta requirements that included an annual budget. This budget shows expenses of $21,557. The management fee of $17,964.00 was added to this balance to arrive at total expenses of $39,521.00. Since the Ampco proposal covers both parking decks, adjusting the expenses to a factor of 0.54 (the ratio of RSPD parking spaces to total parking spaces in both decks) produces $21,341.43 in total non-labor operating expenses for the RSPD for the first year.

South Augusta community activist Juanita Burney submitted a Georgia Open Records Act Request to the city’s Law Department seeking the annual plan for the RSPD as submitted by selected management firm Augusta Riverfront, LLC. After some delay and a follow-up request, she received documents including undated cover letters from Augusta Riverfront, LLC, accompanying one 12 month budget for 2012 dated August 29, 2011 and an 11 month budget dated January 26, 2012.

The August 2011 budget was used for comparison purposes, as it covered 12 months and was closer in timing to the Ampco budget. The LLC budget for expenses totaled $83,818.00, but $29,505.00 related to Augusta-provided utility costs and credit card fees which were outside of those listed within the RFP. This brought the total costs down to $54,113.00, which were higher than the Ampco adjusted total by $32,771.66. Bear in mind that the Ampco agreement only limited the manager to the specific types of expenses listed, but not totals, so actual costs may have exceeded the budget for Ampco.

Did the Augusta Administrator consider the budgeted expense differential between the rejected, but deemed compliant Ampco proposal and the much higher Augusta Riverfront budget? If not, why not?

5. Labor Costs Under the Annual Budget

Ampco’s labor budget was $212,225.00, plus labor burden of $44,444.00 for a total of $256,669.00, with the RSPD portion (0.54) totaling $138,601.26. Augusta Riverfront LLC’s labor budget was $95,150.00, plus labor burden of $27,402.00, for a total of $122, 552.00, or $16,049.26 less. Most of the extra cost from Ampco was the inclusion of a Supervisor and from unusually high worker compensation costs.

As noted above, Ampco would seem to have been limited to the costs enumerated in its budget by the terms of the proposed agreement. The LLC can add costs that fall under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). Also, the language of 5.3 on page 8, of the RSPD Management Agreement states that the Manager determines the personnel necessary to operate the RSPD and in paragraph (f) on page 9 states that the Manager can assign, “shared employees.”

Are there sufficient contract controls over the assignment of additional staff and shared employees for Augusta when the Manager has this level of discretion? 

6. Operating Cost Advance 

The terms of the RFP, and accepted by Ampco, states in Article 3, paragraph 4, “The Operator shall be granted an operating fund advance equivalent to 2 months operating expenses, to be credited against the first two months of operation.” The terms of the LLC agreement on page 11, in 6.2, provides for an ongoing 90 day operation expense fund balance.

Is the fund balance sufficiently offset by the LLC’s funding of the other deck agreement? 

7. Capital Budget

 

The RFP and Ampco proposal contained no separate capital budget. The LLC budget included a schedule entitled, “Equipment – Startup Cost,” which included a Riding Sweeper at an estimated cost of $59,000. The schedule also included additional cost of Freight and Tax. The Conference Center Deck Agreement in Paragraph 4 (page 5) states, “With respect to any equipment owned by by Landlord but used for both the RSPD and the Demised Premises, Tenant shall pay a fair rental rate for the use of said equipment, as set forth in the Annual Plan in effect for the RSPD Management Agreement.” No credit was found in the proposed RSPD budget for that sweeper, so perhaps it will be used only in the RSPD.

If the capital equipment was purchased via an Augusta bank account with Augusta funds, wouldn’t the purchase be exempt from (sales) tax? Will the prorated fair rental costs for RSPD capital equipment be included in the Annual Plan?

8. Credit Card Fees 

The initial Annual Budget for 2012 proposed by the LLC includes an expense item for credit card fees. However, “Operating Revenues” includes discounts for credit card fees, which is consistent with the RFP sample contract.

 

**Could this give rise to double reimbursement of credit card fees?

 

Summary 
 

Augusta had a long running contract with Republic Parking that seems to have been the basis for its sample RFP contract. Ampco Parking did not find this contract objectionable and accepted large portions of it. In general, why are the agreements the City Administrator recommended so much more flexible in terms of internal controls? Will the relative infrequency of reporting and manager control over revenues and expenses provide Augusta with sufficient information to assure that potential conflicts of interest, alluded to in Article 5.1.b of the RSPD Management Agreement, have not arisen? Did the Administrator use the Ampco bid terms, conditions, and costs to negotiate the best deal possible for Augusta?

Questions abound with these deck arrangements. We could ask questions approaching the number of parking spaces in these parking decks. The Augusta Commission should have asked them before rushing to approve the parking deck agreements, too. ***

– Bradley Owens
 
*Contributing to this report were Cost Recovery Specialist Al Gray, with South Augusta Community activist Juanita Burney and Harrisburg Community activist Lori Davis.
 

Augusta’s Contract With Heery International Contains More Surprises

  By , ,

Hear Ye, Heery is Here

More Overpriced Payees for the City?

Originally posted on CityStink
February 24, 2012
Augusta, GA
By Al Gray

The author, Al M. Gray, was President of Cost Recovery Works, Inc., a provider of Cost Avoidance and Cost Recovery for America’s leading companies, businesses and governments desiring Superior Returns. Cost Recovery Works is no longer in business, as of December 31, 2020.

In 2003 the City of Augusta did a wise thing in a very foolish way. The administration saw an enormous upswing in capital spending that it lacked the staff and expertise to plan, engineer, procure, manage and control. A large, growing, and respected Atlanta-based firm, Heery International, was selected to perform these functions. The strategy was sound.

The execution was horrible.

This blanket order was executed with 4% annual rate increases mandated. Despite the downturn in construction and the overall economy, in which labor, overhead and profit have tended to fall, the compounding of Heery’s rates continued unabated. The rates established for next year are up an incredible 48% over the initial rates. A Principle in Charge then was $162.16 an hour, this year one is $230.81 and next year it would be $240.04. A project manager then was $87.32. Now one is $124.28, rising to $129.25 next year. An administrative assistant went from $42.41 to $62.78 an hour.

The cumulative effects are stunning. In July 2010 the contract was extended to 2013. At the time, the contract price was raised from $7,082,355 to $10,317,906.

Amazingly, the total overhead and fee in RW Allen’s contract to build and equip the entire TEE Center is $1.8 million, while Heery’s program management fees will top $1.2 million. There is another $1.3 million slated for the Webster Detention Center Phase II. The Reynolds Street Parking Deck is a surprising $549,390.

A defense can be made that division of duties between the construction management firms and Heery reduced the costs of the former. That is a valid point. The difference in rates probably negates a lot of this advantage, however.

A fairly common approach is for the hourly rate for such services to be based upon some verifiable figure, usually the salary rate of the employee divided by 2080 (52 weeks, 40 hours per week) times a multiplier that is negotiated. 2.0 to 2.3 is a normal range. The Heery contract does not accomplish this. The rates were firmly set on an unknown basis back in 2003 and 2004. Augusta did not negotiate controls over composition of rates.

Beyond this, generally there is a firm division in setting rates that only people directly engaged in the project or on site are billed. Principals, Project Directors, and home office administrative assistants, all of whom appear on Augusta’s contract, are included within the markup applied to the directly-engaged employees. Augusta’s Heery contract allows these employees to be billed in addition to the marked-up billing rates of the direct employees.

Augusta is only permitted to audit the hours billed and the employee classification. Augusta is not allowed access to payroll records to ascertain accuracy of the rate billed or upon what basis the rate is determined. The language is blunt: “OWNER may only audit accounting records applicable to a cost-reimbursable type compensation.”

What this says is that the public can never know how community liaison Butch Gallop‘s Heery billing rate got to be a whopping $177.91 an hour billed, with the potential of being billed at the $240.04 an hour on the rate sheet for next year!

The contract is nearly always advertised as a joint venture between Dukes Edwards Dukes and Heery International. Indeed, Dukes Edwards Dukes principal Winfred Dukes appears on the billing rate sheet at $240.04 an hour in 2013, up from the initial $162.16 an hour. For the sake of clarity and honesty, Dukes bills only about 4 hours a month. He is one of several Heery executives who Augusta should never have allowed to be billed, in this writer’s humble opinion, since they are at supervision levels above the Senior Project Managers and directly-engaged staff on Augusta’s projects.

To summarize, the Heery contract has been on auto-pilot with compounding rates, unverifiable rate bases, and apparent inadequate division of direct labor versus overhead. The fault lies with Augusta, not its contractor, in this case as in all of the others recently reviewed. Augusta is profligate with taxpayer money, in this case by not revisiting a blanket order for services, electing to extend it untouched for years.

Who is Winfred Dukes? Well we found him under the Gold Dome in Atlanta.

Who knew Augusta had another State Representative in the Georgia House?
Mysterious bodies abound in Augusta’s contracts. So far there are two in the Heery contract.

Stay tuned, there is more to come, as the deciphering of Augusta’s contracting continues.
Much more.***

A.G.
Related Stories:
“Galloping” Away With Taxpayers’ Money

**View Heery Document Below

Heery

TEE Center Update: Did Fred Fix the Kitchen But Fail to Execute?

  By ,

The Convention Center Agreement Today

Fred and Barry’s Unexecuted Fix?

Friday, Feb. 24, 2012

Augusta, GA

by Al Gray

In TEE Center Kitchen Costs Leave Taxpayers Burnt! , yesterday’s City Stink exclusive, this writer covered deficiencies in the City of Augusta’s TEE Center Term Sheet with its partner in the project, Augusta Riverfront, LLC, which was approved by the City Commission on August 21, 2007. This was the approved document recently cited by attorney Jim Plunkett’s resolution recounting the history of Commission votes ratifying TEE and Parking Deck Agreements. A formal agreement was belatedly drafted and conditionally approved for the Reynolds Street Parking Deck on February 7.

Despite references in Board of Commissioner meetings all through 2009, no formal contractual agreement has been found executing the final TEE (now Conference Center) operating agreement. The original operating agreement for the Convention Center was recorded in the office of the Clerk of Superior Court. There doesn’t seem to have been any modification nor has there been any action to define rights with respect to the .23 acre tract that the LLC owns under the TEE Center. Like the parking deck agreements, the formal agreement seems to have lagged negotiations by years.

Based upon a schedule obtained in an earlier open records request by City Stink contributor Lori Davis (See Modifications Sheet Document Here) and informational updates made since the August 21, 2007 approval of the original term sheet that was unfavorable to Augusta, as noted yesterday, it looks like Augusta City Administrator Fred Russell and City Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Chief Barry White actually may have done an exceptional job of renegotiating the deal so that it is dramatically more favorable to the City!

The proposed modifications put the City in control of the Center’s finances, gives it catering revenues, provides for a set fee rather than profits from operations, and provides that profits from operations go to Augusta. If this modification represents the final agreement, it is vastly superior to the original deal and is actually a very good deal for the City of Augusta.

From here it looks like the original Term Sheet stands as the only basis of an operating agreement actually approved by the Commission and that the final agreement has been mired in what have to be tremendous legal complexities of merging the TEE agreement with the existing Convention Center Agreement.

The final agreement should take care of the issue of the new kitchen equipment and replacements of that equipment going forward, but the Issue of how the new agreement relieved the LLC’s responsibilities going into this transaction, up to and until the combined TEE Center starts operations, still stands as does the issue of LLC responsibility for the proposed HVAC changes demanded by the Marriott.

Leaving issues like these, which should have been finalized before construction, hanging for 4 ½ years is a huge failure of administration, despite Fred Russell’s accomplishment of what looks to be a much, much better deal.

This story will be updated as new developments are known.***

A.G.

Related Stories:

Exclusive: TEE Center Kitchen Costs Leave Taxpayers Burnt!

  By ,
!!CityStink.net Exclusive!!

And Now, The Tee Kitchen Saga

A cost recovery opinion and perspective



Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012
Augusta, GA
by Al Gray

 

In a very heated Augusta Richmond County Commission meeting last evening, February 21, 2012, a proposed change order totaling $836,288 for modifications to the TEE Center Contract with RW Allen was disapproved. The substantial price increase was really the aggregate of 13 different change orders combined for the purpose of gaining Commission approval, usually a rubber stamp. This time the Commission balked because of a stench boiling out of the unfinished TEE/Convention Center Kitchen. $399,823 of the increase was an HVAC upgrade to the kitchen area at the insistence of the city’s partner in this public-private partnership, Augusta Riverfront, LLC, operator of the Marriott hotel.

Neither side of the vote on the Commission was wrong. Augusta’s entire project management team had signed off on the change order four months ago, so disapproving it now was a moot point. Some commissioners accurately saw it that way and voted for approval, yet they all have serious questions. The rest missed the point about construction contract law and jumped to the real issue – are the Augusta Riverfront partners in this project controlling and expanding the scope to their benefit, yet totally at public expense?

The change order is a “done deal.”  A war appears imminent between the partners over financial responsibility for various areas of the project.

There is a powerful ODOR coming from the kitchen.

The parties jumped into this agreement based upon a document entitled Management Agreement Term Sheet – Trade Center, Version 6 dated June 29, 2007, which the Commission approved on August 21, 2007. The purpose of the term sheet was to set forth that the “City of Augusta (“Augusta”) and Augusta Riverfront, LLC (“LLC”) are interested in entering into a joint venture to own, build and operate a Trade, Exhibit and Event Center (“Trade Center”).”

This controlling document failed to establish effective dates or define WHEN operations start and construction ends. It would appear to embrace start of operations before project completion because it requires the Convention and Visitors Bureau to expend City funds 18 months before the project is complete. Aside from this, the project itself was scheduled to accommodate ongoing operations.

Let’s see what the Term Sheet says about cost responsibility: “LLC has total responsibility to provide all operating cost of the Convention Center, including, but not limited to, labor cost, supply cost, insurance and all repair, maintenance, and replacement of equipment. These replacement costs include replacing kitchen equipment, laundry equipment, HVAC equipment, outside walls and roof.”

Then there is this section:

AUGUSTA AND LLC AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS TO OWN, BUILD AND OPERATE THE TRADE CENTER

5.  OPERATIONAL & CAPITAL FUNDING: It is anticipated that the new Trade Center’s rental revenues may not be sufficient to cover its operating expenses, particularly in the early years. The Trade Center will have capital needs for addition and replacement of various fixed assets. Augusta and LLC will participate in these Operational and Capital Funding needs as follows:

…

d. Augusta’s Capital Funds shall specifically not be used for items related to Kitchen Equipment, Laundry Equipment, and any Convention Center or Hotel capital cost.

Remember there are no dates given to establish when operations start because operations were ongoing and overlap construction activities. Even more confusing is what is “Convention Center” versus “TEE Center.” Indeed, by actions of Augusta Riverfront, LLC publicly acknowledging that BOTH are the “Convention Center” hasn’t that partner effectively agreed that its financial responsibilities for the combined total include those that previously existed for the Convention Center?

Interestingly, the Term Sheet provided that the kitchen for which Augusta Riverfront had equipment repair and replacement responsibilities would be consolidated with the TEE Center kitchen.

7. KITCHEN AND BACK-OF-HOUSE: LLC and Augusta will allow the necessary modifications to the Convention Center to provide for the combined use of the kitchen, laundry and back of the house areas. The modified kitchen and back of the house space will be designed for use for both the Convention Center and the Trade Center.

In so combining the “Convention Center” with the “TEE Center” did Augusta Riverfront’s existing financial responsibility for kitchen equipment disappear? Or did it carry over?

4. TERM OF AGREEMENT: Augusta and LLC agree to modify their agreement for the operation of the Convention Center to include the Trade Center.

The Term Sheet also clearly stated that catering revenues produced by the kitchen equipment do not result in any benefit for Augusta.

APPENDIX A: Definitions

For purposes of calculating the “Trade Center Operational Funding” described in Section 5., the Operating Revenues shall not include the following:…..

m. Trade Center Catering Revenues

2. Trade Center Catering Revenues: shall consist of those food and beverage revenues generated on formal, catered meal functions held in the Trade Center.

City Stink and Augusta Today contributor Lori Davis obtained the December 31, 2012 project billing from Construction Manager at Risk RW Allen to the city (See Document here: Attn to Kitchen Equipment Line Item Item 19 on Page 3). This billing includes a line item of $1,376,987 for Kitchen Equipment, $275,946 of which has already been billed and presumably paid, less the retainage. Examination of the supporting subcontractor invoice shows thousands of dollars to repair and clean existing equipment that would have apparently been the responsibility of the LLC under the previous agreement. The controversial HVAC change order to meet Marriott standards can be added to the total.

It is clear that the infrastructure and building costs for the kitchen are the responsibility of Augusta. These costs are included in the building mechanical, electrical, HVAC and other contracts. No potential issues are apparent there, other than cost issues that might be unearthed in the future by a construction auditor.

Adding the $1,376,987 of kitchen equipment to the Marriott-directed kitchen HVAC upgrade $399,083 means a total of $1,776,070 of kitchen equipment capital costs that are potentially disputable by the City of Augusta as costs to be born by Augusta Riverfront, LLC.

Questions abound. Has the City backcharged the LLC for any of the $275,946 paid to date for kitchen equipment and repair or cleaning of existing equipment the LLC seems responsible for? Isn’t the full $1,776,070 capital expenditures for which the LLC is responsible under the existing agreement and the Term Sheet?  Was an intent to treat the capital expenditures for new kitchen equipment as an Augusta cost adequately stated in the term sheet? Are the provisions for the LLC to be a partner in the project mean it can claim one start date for its project start date, yet another as the start date of ‘operations’ under the same agreement when no dates are stated in that agreement? Hasn’t the LLC by announcing that the whole is now the “Convention Center” legally shot itself in the foot by in doing so embracing responsibility for kitchen capital expenditures? How many other costs of the Tee Center construction supplant existing LLC responsibilities for operating and capital costs from the existing Convention Center agreements? Where are the backcharges to the LLC?

Summary

To summarize, the Term Sheet establishing the relationship between the City of Augusta and the LLC for the TEE Center Project seems to be flawed in terms of effective dates; makes repeated statements that capital costs of kitchen equipment, which cost more than $1.7 million, and other capital costs are LLC responsibility; combines the existing “Convention Center” agreement with provisions making the LLC responsible for kitchen equipment with the new TEE Center construction and operations; and excludes Augusta from any apparent benefit from use of this capital equipment.

Somebody has a grand mess in their kitchen. This writer would be hard-pressed to decipher financial responsibilities under this informal, rushed, and incomplete Term Sheet “agreement.”

The lawyers are salivating because dividing this baby is going to take more than the wisdom and judgment of Solomon. The opinion from this quarter would be that it could be split 50-50. Given the size of these costs, that won’t be an easy pill to swallow.

The Commission is, yet again, in an impossible position with respect to this project. Can they get any more Tee’d off?

Stay tuned for more cost recovery analysis  as the TEE Center documents are dissected while the project nears completion.***

 Al Gray

Editor’s note: City Stink contributor Al Gray is President of Cost Recovery Works, Inc., a Lincoln County, Georgia-based firm focused on construction, public administration, policy and cost recovery reviews on a guaranteed results basis. Cost Recovery Works is no longer in business, as of December 31, 2020.

Related Stories:
TEE Update: Did Fred Fix the Kitchen But Fail to Execute?

** Below are pdf files of the documents referenced in the above article:

RWA December 2011 Pay App
TEE Term Sheet (1)

Al Gray: TEE Center GMP Construction Contract Provides No “Guarantees”

  By , , ,
When A Guarantee Isn’t One

Originally posted on CityStink
Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012
Augusta, GA
By Al Gray

The author, Al M. Gray, was President of Cost Recovery Works, Inc., a provider of Cost Avoidance and Cost Recovery for America’s leading companies, businesses and governments desiring Superior Returns. Cost Recovery Works is no longer in business, as of December 31, 2020.

Augusta Commissioners on February 21, 2012, today, face a thorny vote on whether to approve a very expensive Change Order to R.W. Allen, LLC’s Construction Manager at Risk Contract for construction of the TEE Center. The contract is structured as a cost-plus arrangement with a Guaranteed Maximum Price. Such deals are commonly called GMAX or GMP contracts.

Under a cost-plus GMP contract, the construction manager starts construction before the design and specifications are complete in an effort to accelerate project completion. Otherwise all of the design, specifications and plans must be complete in order to bid the job on a lump sum or fixed price basis. Under a GMP contract, the construction manager mobilizes, awards the early sitework, underground piping, and preliminary concrete work while the architects and engineers complete packages for the various construction disciplines (steel, electrical, HVAC) that occur in later stages. When the overall design reaches majority completion, in this case 65%, the construction manager has enough data to provide the owner with a Guaranteed Maximum Price.

RW Allen and Augusta agreed to a GMP of $27,900,000 in January 2011.

The public highly distrusts cost-plus contracts, even those capped by a maximum price “Guarantee.” In this instance, properly done, cost-plus should have saved money and been the best choice method of project delivery. RW Allen had to deal with a brownfield site (unknown underground obstacles and conditions), coordination with ongoing operations of the hotel and convention center, in a congested area, and in conjunction with new design. Trying to force fixed price contracting intended for a set design would have resulted in risk-loaded contract prices where the real risk remained with the owner, the City of Augusta. The unknowns and variables were too great. Because the Guaranteed Maximum Price assumes set design parameters at the time the price is set, every GMP contract allows for change orders in the event that the design changes in the later stages at the recommendation of the architect and engineers. A change order increases the guaranteed maximum price.

Change Order 2, totaling $836,228, is actually the aggregation of 13 component change orders, including a controversial $399,083 change to the HVAC system to increase air turns to 8 over the base design standard of 2.5. Augusta’s architect approved this change months ago.

Some Augusta commissioners are grumbling because they confused “Guaranteed Maximum Price” with “Lump Sum.” In either contracting method there still would be change orders and they would be legitimate. The commissioners reticence to accept price increases because there is a price “guarantee” is a misunderstanding of the deal.

When a change order like this one gets to the Board of Commissioners it generally is a fait accompli. This looks to be the case in this instance. Under the RW Allen contract, the city is already bound. Look at the dates and signatures on the change order. The master change order 2 is dated October 17, 2011 and is more than four months old! The component change orders have to be of even earlier vintage. RW Allen’s contract for the TEE Center spells out that change orders increase the contract price in Article 15.

There is little doubt that RW Allen was given the authority to proceed. The City of Augusta’s architect/engineer, program manager, and city administrator have all signed the authorization. Under the TEE Center contract, the commissioners have no real options.

Augusta commissioners really should not want a lump sum at this point, because a lump sum contract has fewer options for cost reductions and cost recoveries as the contractors have born the risks and have earned the rewards of bearing those risks. (This doesn’t mean that lump sum contracts do not bear auditing, though!).

Commissioners can look forward to reductions in the Guaranteed Maximum Price as the TEE Center is completed. Allowances will be adjusted to actual cost both in the construction manager contract and in the component subcontracted packages. Contingency in this contract was $566,000 and that will be adjusted, too. Adjustments of ‘costs’ may or may not happen, depending on diligence.

Augusta Commissioners should be happy with the contract that they have and not yearn for a counterproductive fixed price that never would have been a lump sum. Just because a contract and change orders to it set a contract price, that does not mean that an evaluation of the scope documents cannot later reduce that price.

The administration and Board of Commissioners need to take prudent steps to verify the costs at completion. In fact, this needs to be performed for all of the various cost-plus GMP contracts the city has done in the last 3 years. Based upon the volume of these contracts, this writer projects that the costs recaptured by a comprehensive effort would range from $1.25 million to $5 million.

Nothing much is “guaranteed” in a GMP contract, just that the contractor keeps the change. Rarely is the change of the loose pocket variety. Augusta has let its contractors keep $millions in change by fruitlessly grumbling about change orders, then closing out “completed” contracts with nary a care.

That does guarantee a price.

Not if Augusta commissioners get wise.***

Al Gray

Editor’s note: City Stink contributor Al Gray is President of Cost Recovery Works, Inc., a Lincoln County, Georgia-based firm focused on construction, public administration, policy and cost recovery reviews on a guaranteed results basis. Cost Recovery Works is no longer in business, as of December 31, 2020.

Below are the documents referenced in this story:

r w Allen Gmp G-1 Tee Center
RWA – Tee Contract

“Galloping” Away with Taxpayers’ Money

  By ,
Augusta Stumbling Into a “Gallop”

 

Wednesday Feb. 15, 2012

Augusta, GA
*updated at 3:45pm

by IndyInjun

We were watching WRDW’s Chris Thomas on the latest Marriott hotel fiasco, a TEE Center change order of $396,000, when a familiar face appeared defending the hotel’s pricey standards that Augusta is being asked to fund. It was long-time Augusta political activist and Charles Walker acolyte, Wilbert “Butch” Gallop. Mr. Gallop was identified as a “project liaison,” whatever that is.

At last count there were three oversight and management service companies, TVS Design, Heery International, and R.W. Allen, charging well over $4 million to manage the TEE Center and Reynolds Street Parking Deck projects. That’s a lot of overhead! Why are so many needed to administer these trouble-plagued jobs? Why is it so costly?

One reason is that Augusta is being charged $177.91 per hour for Butch Gallop’s services by program Manager Heery International for his work as “community liaison.”

We have a hint of what Butch Gallop’s “liaison” work for Heery International might entail from a June 17, 2009 article in the Augusta Chronicle by Johnny Edwards. In this article we learned that Gallop essentially worked as a “community organizer” to help drive out the vote by canvassing neighborhoods and supposedly dispelling “misinformation” to pass the SPLOST VI. Gallop worked alongside Janie Peel, Brenda Durandt, and Tricia Hughes on the “Yes to SPLOST VI” campaign.

Butch Gallop is quoted in the article: “The team that was put together — Brenda Durant, Janie Peel and Tricia Hughes — put something together to really educate the community… The naysayers always have something negative to say, but they didn’t know why they were negative. All they kept talking about was pork-barrel projects.”

All this while he was on the payroll of Heery International, which manages Augusta’s sales tax projects. So does that mean taxpayers are indirectly paying Butch Gallop to be a lobbyist and community organizer to help push thru these SPLOSTs, which greatly benefit Heery International? It sure appears that way.

Casting the net beyond the TEE Center and Deck projects we found Butch Gallop in the pay of ESG Operations, Inc., operator of the Messerly Waste Water Treatment Plant, at the rate of $2,500.00 per month. While whether Gallop was charged as a reimbursable cost under the waste water treatment plant contract or is absorbed in the overhead cost of the contractor’s services is immaterial. Augusta paid.

Just how many other Augusta contractors feel compelled to engage Butch Gallop’s services? What is going on here?

What exactly does a “liaison” do?

In these times of tough budget decisions, employee pay and benefit reductions, and aggressive cost-cutting, how will city leaders defend this galloping cost?

Augusta is squandering millions of dollars, while its commissioners dawdle and play the most unfortunate of political games. Stay tuned.***

Related Stories:

More Deception in Parking Gate?

  By ,
Once again a majority of commissioners have egg on their face

Monday, Feb. 13, 2012
Augusta, GA
By The Outsider

Well it appears that there may be no deal after all to release the liens on the property where the $12 million TEE Center Parking Deck sits, nor does there appear to be any deal in place for the property to be acquired by the city’s land bank.

So it looks like instead of coming up with a last ditch effort to solve Parking Gate, what we have is merely more subterfuge and deception. And the mission of the city’s land bank is to acquire blighted properties that are often delinquent in property taxes. The property where the TEE Center Parking Deck sits hardly qualifies. So it appears we are back to square one. But the question must be asked… what exactly happened at last Tuesday’s commission meeting? Were commissioners deceived yet again over this parking deck saga? It certainly appears that way.

Al Gray and Lori Davis presented compelling evidence at last Tuesday’s commission meeting as to why the motion to approve the parking deck management contract with Augusta Riverfront, LLC should be defeated. Mr Gray made the point that commissioners should use this as an opportunity to exercise some leverage to demand more transparency and the right to audit all of the city’s financial relationships with Augusta Riverfront, LLC. That demand sent Augusta Riverfront, LLC and their protectors on the commission into panic mode, and at the last minute in what seemed to be a Hail Mary Pass, commissioner Jerry Brigham said that he had an agreement with Augusta Riverfront, LLC, that Wells Fargo had agreed to release all liens and have the land transferred to the city’s land bank. It had appeared that a solution had been reached, and a majority of commissioners, splitting along racial lines approved the management agreement with Augusta Riverfront, LLC. The four black commissioners said that Tuesday’s commission meeting was the first that they had heard of this deal. But it appears this solution was all a ruse, and nothing but an attempt to thwart the efforts to open up the books to the other contracts the city has with Augusta Riverfront, LLC.

So What’s Really Going On Here?

Did Commissioner Brigham really have an agreement with Augusta Riverfront, LLC before last Tuesday’s commission meeting? Commissioner Bowles says it all came together the afternoon before Tuesday’s vote. It seems to us that Commissioner Brigham should be able to produce something in writing from the bank that they had agreed to release the liens and consulted with the land bank that they could take the property before presenting this as a solution to commissioners. Was there anything in writing from the bank confirming release of the liens? We also have to question the judgement of the other five commissioners who voted for this “deal” last Tuesday. Now they all have egg all over their faces. There is no documentation that shows the bank has agreed to release the liens. So we have to ask. What’s really going on here? Was this really a good faith effort to find a last minute solution to put the land under city ownership free of all liens or was this a ruse to rush a management agreement through to cover all of this up?***

CS

Related Stories:

Al Gray: Liening on a Stacked Deck

  By , ,

Augusta Deckgate: More Subterfuge?

 

Originally posted by CityStink
Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012
Augusta, GA
By Al Gray

The author, Al M. Gray, was President of Cost Recovery Works, Inc., a provider of Cost Avoidance and Cost Recovery for America’s leading companies, businesses and governments desiring Superior Returns. Cost Recovery Works is no longer in business, as of December 31, 2020.

The substitute motion that passed at last Tuesday’s Augusta Richmond County Commission Meeting to approve the Reynolds Street Parking Deck agreement pending lien-free donation of the land took this incredible saga to a new level of absurdity.

Beyond the criticism that the city didn’t own the land, there was no other impetus for doing such a thing. Opponents of the agreement were not questioning the efficacy of the previous air rights transaction in preserving tax exempt financing. To a lesser extent they were questioning a promised donation never made, which this ‘solution’ would meet. Yesterday’s Augusta Chronicle article spends a great deal of time on what looks to be a misdirection play. Air rights were not the major issue, the liens were.

The motion still applies to property with liens on it that have not been addressed or satisfied. Worse, it passed in the face of entreaties to institute rights of audit up front for this agreement and also to implement the capabilities to audit the existing Augusta Riverfront, LLC and Augusta partnership arrangements. City hired attorney Jim Plunkett expressed a willingness to do that on future contracts and perhaps include more provisions in the deck agreement itself, but studiously avoided the issue of auditing the existing partnership arrangements over the last 3 years.

The deck agreement is essentially a cost-plus fixed fee arrangement with the LLC’s controlling “costs.” The operations budget has to be funded on a 90 day reserve basis. If revenues fall short of expenses the City has to make up the difference. The capital budget is kept at the lesser of $250,000 or the annual plan capital reserve level. Since the PLAN is largely determinant, have the commissioners seen it?

What is really strange is the juxtaposition of what is said and what the evidence is about the release of those liens. From the Chronicle article we get this: Paul Simon, the president of 933 Broad, said he has had a letter from the bank holding the lien agreeing to release it when the deal is final since as far back as July 2010. He said he expected no problems in transferring the real estate to the land bank.

The proposed Consent and Subordination Agreement supplied to the Engineering Services Committee Monday, January 30, as an attachment (Page 15) to the CORE agreement, says that Wells Fargo Bank, “…consents to the foregoing agreement and subordinates the Security Deed to the foregoing agreement. Otherwise the Security Deed shall remain in full force and effect.” How can there be a, “letter from the bank holding the lien agreeing to release it,” from 2010 when the Consent and Subordination attachment, prepared by the City’s attorney and submitted just last week, clearly states that the Security Deed (lien), “…shall remain in full force and effect.” Doesn’t this just mean that the City is put in the same position as the Developer if the latter goes away via default? The liens would stand.

Has there really ever been a deal to release the liens? Will there be? It surely doesn’t look that way from these documents. How the new land bank deeding strategy answers this is unclear. “The lawyers are handling it,” doesn’t sound very reassuring, but we are being asked to bank upon it.***

AG

Parking Gate Providing a “Teachable Moment” for City Leaders

  By , ,

The controversial new $12 million TEE Center parking deck

Originally Posted on CityStink.net
Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012
Augusta, GA

Contributions were made to this article by Al M. Gray, President of Cost Recovery Works, Inc., a provider of Cost Avoidance and Cost Recovery for America’s leading companies, businesses and governments desiring Superior Returns. Cost Recovery Works is no longer in business, as of December 31, 2020.

Today, Augusta Commissioners will decide whether to push ahead with a 15 year management contract with Augusta Riverfront, LLC over the controversial new $12,000,000 TEE Center parking deck, or to put the brakes on the deal because of recent revelations that we helped uncover showing that not only does the city not own the land under the deck, but that it has liens on it to secure more than $7,000,000 in debt. Citizen activists Lori Davis and Al Gray, representing the group Augusta Today, who uncovered the information about the land ownership and liens will speak before the commission today to explain why the management agreement should be voted down.

Some people will argue that we just need to move on and approve the deal;  that, yes this ordeal is a mess and there were lots of mistakes made, but that they cannot be undone now and so the best course is to just minimize our losses. But that argument is based on faulty logic. Is this really the best deal the city can negotiate with Augusta Riverfront, LLC? Let’s remember who negotiated it on behalf of the city: Administrator Fred Russell, the same Fred Russell who mislead commissioners on multiple occasions about the land being donated and kept information from them about the liens. Can we really believe that Fred Russell negotiated the best deal possible? It is only slightly better than the one the commissioners voted down a few months ago, and this current proposal has been only slightly improved with what Russell has described as, “minor tweaks.” With the information uncovered in the last couple weeks, is that really good enough? We don’t think so. The fact that this current deal has Russell’s fingerprints all over it is all the justification needed to defeat it.

Commissioner Grady Smith has a better idea. In an interview with WJBF’s George Eskola yesterday, Commissioner Smith said, “I think we should get into the room with the other side, let’s get all the facts on the table.” He is right. The Commissioners themselves should go back to the negotiating table with Paul S Simon of Augusta Riverfront, LLC and see if a better deal can be made, instead of trusting the one that Fred Russell crafted is in the best interest of the taxpayers. Commissioner Smith went on to say, “When you’re dealing with the taxpayers’ money, let’s make sure everything is on the table. A lot of times… where there’s smoke, there’s fire, innuendo’s. Let’s get them clear.” We could not agree more with Commissioner Grady Smith on that point.

Mayor Pro-tem Joe Bowles told Chris Thomas of WRDW that he would “absolutely not” support the current management agreement on the table saying, “It needs to be five years.” It appears to us that our elected officials may be able to do a much better job than Fred Russell in negotiating new terms over the management contract for the TEE Center parking decks.

The Mayor’s Misdirected Outrage

Mayor Deke Copenhaver

It’s not often that Mayor Deke Copenhaver speaks out on an issue of controversy but he finally weighed in on the debate over the TEE Center parking deck and the calls for a deeper investigation. But the Mayor appears to have directed his outrage towards the citizen watchdogs who uncovered the misdeeds rather than the people responsible for the mess. In a lengthy guest column that appeared in this past Sunday’s Augusta Chronicle, the Mayor wrote:

“I also have shared that those individuals and families who are the foundation of my support generally are not the people who grouse and complain through websites, blogs and silly Facebook pages where adults behaving in the most childish manner possible actually invest hours out of each day in trafficking in rumor, innuendo and misinformation while seeing who can act the most absurd.”


We assume that the Mayor is talking about us and Augusta Today.  That’s OK, we don’t mind being called names. And I guess it does mean that the Mayor is paying attention to what we are doing, so that’s a good thing. But, “trafficking rumor, innuendo, and misinformation?” We’re not exactly sure what the Mayor is referring to unless he believes that the city’s own public records contain “misinformation” on the parking deck deal, because that is where we have found most of our evidence thus far. And we would think that the Mayor would also be outraged to learn that there was a pattern of deception to mislead the public and public officials over the TEE Center parking deck: First learning that the land was never donated as promised and then to learn that it has liens on it jeopardizing the city’s air rights. But the Mayor seems to think there’s nothing to it all.

The Mayor also took the time to blast the call for a forensic audit, calling it a, “waste of money.” Actually, we now agree with the Mayor that a forensic audit may be unnecessary, but not because there is not impropriety involved over the TEE Center and parking deck, but rather because we have already proven a pattern of deception found in the public documents that we were able to obtain as well as through newspaper articles going back over 5 years. So in a sense we have already done the forensic audit for the city for free. Now, it all depends on what authorities choose to do with the information we uncovered.

And whereas we appreciate The Mayor’s concern for not “wasting” any more of the taxpayers’ money, that argument does seem to be a bit disingenuous coming from him. The Mayor didn’t seem so concerned about taxpayer money being wasted on huge severance packages going to fired incompetent department heads because Administrator Fred Russell could not keep accurate employee evaluations. The Mayor also did not seem too concerned about tax money being wasted on continuing to fight a loosing lawsuit against the video X-Mart. The Mayor also didn’t speak out when the city’s procurement department was costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of tax dollars in lawsuits. And just recently, The Mayor asked and received $100,000 in tax money for what is essentially a fancy conference room in the middle of Broad Street. This, amid one of the tightest city budgets in years that included layoffs and cuts to nearly every department, including public safety.  But now all of a sudden when it comes to investigating the irregularities over the TEE Center and parking deck, the Mayor is concerned about what he calls, “government waste.”

But in a broader sense what is most troubling is the Mayor’s attitude that all of this should  just be swept under the rug because he thinks it makes the city look bad to outside companies. We agree with the Mayor, yes, building $50,000,000 worth of taxpayer financed facilities on privately owned land with liens attached to it, does indeed make the city look very foolish. But what would make the city look even worse in the eyes of outsiders is to blatantly try to cover it all up and suggest there’s nothing to it all. You see, that’s the dismissive attitude that lead to the financial collapse of 2008. A culture of corruption thrived in the financial sector because of a lack of oversight. Real estate was over valued with our tax dollars, and the folks with the creative accountants and lawyers made out like bandits with the taxpayers bailing them out in the end. We believe that outside companies would be far more concerned with obvious efforts by city officials to try and cover up deception, corruption and the blatant misuse of tax dollars, after all they would be paying large sums in taxes to this city if they chose to locate here.

Albert Einstein once said that, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.” Well, this is certainly not the first time Augusta has found itself in a bad situation over one of these  real estate deals. We would like to remind the Mayor that the the city forgave a $7,500,000 UDAG loan to Augusta Riverfront, LLC back in 1998 over the construction of the Marriott over the objections of then City Administrator Randy Oliver. We have to wonder how this current situation would have been handled differently with someone like Oliver at the helm instead of Russell. Back then, Oliver received some heavy criticism from some very powerful local special interests for raising objections over forgiving the loan. But, then Oliver knew who he worked for, the taxpayers, not the special interests.

The question now before Augusta leaders is, “Will you learn from this error and make sure that it doesn’t happen again?” It is very clear that a lack of oversight contributed to this. We now need our elected officials to be more engaged in the process and not simply trust Fred Russell or the lawyers to provide all of the answers, because it is apparent that the commissioners had extremely important information held from them by the city administrator and the lawyers; and these are people who are supposedly working on behalf of the city and being paid with our tax dollars.

In his Sunday guest column, the Mayor chided certain elected officials (without naming names) for “bullying” certain city employees. We certainly agree with the Mayor that  it is important to maintain decorum at commission meetings and there is certainly no place for insults and name-calling. But we must say that the timing of his column was quite odd. What about the taxpayers who have been “bullied” over this bad deal over the parking deck? It seems that the Mayor could have found the space to address that issue, but instead he seems to think that any criticism of the public employees who are partly responsible for this debacle should be off limits. We could not disagree with him more. We need our commissioners asking more tough questions and holding employees accountable. That’s what we elected them to do. In fact, perhaps if commissioners and the Mayor had been more engaged in the process from the beginning, all of these could have been averted  years ago.

What the Mayor is suggesting is that Appearances should trump The Truth. We could not disagree more. And besides, public officials look the most foolish and suspect in the eyes of the public when they are trying to cover up the truth. It’s always best to get the truth out in the open, admit mistakes were made,  and then learn from them so that the same mistakes cannot be made over and over.  In the case of Parking Gate, we have a teachable moment, how our elected officials choose to learn from it is up to them.***

CS

Breaking News!: Committee Fails to Pass Parking Deck Agreement

  By , ,

Originally posted on CityStink
Mon. Jan. 30, 2012
Augusta, GA

Contributions were made to this article by Al M. Gray, President of Cost Recovery Works, Inc., a provider of Cost Avoidance and Cost Recovery for America’s leading companies, businesses and governments desiring Superior Returns. Cost Recovery Works is no longer in business, as of December 31, 2020.

!Breaking News!

This just in. The revised management agreement for the new $12 million Reynolds Street Parking Deck has failed to win approval in committee. In a 2-2 tie vote, the motion to send the deck agreement to the full commission with committee recommendation failed by default. Committee members Jerry Brigham and Wayne Guilfoyle voted in favor of sending the deck management agreement forward without a recommendation. Commissioners Alvin Mason and William Lockett were opposed. It takes at least 3 votes to pass a motion. Ties cannot be broken in committee and thus the motion fails by default.

This vote comes amid a new controversy that City Stink broke last week revealing that there are liens on the property under the deck held by Wells Fargo Bank (formerly Wachovia) as collateral for a loan to prospective deck operator Augusta Riverfront, LLC for more than $7,000,000.

Commissioner Bill Lockett wanted to hold off on the vote altogether to proceed with the management agreement until after a forensic audit of the land transactions and financing of the parking deck is completed. Brigham asked if the forensic audit was germane to the discussion over the management agreement. General counsel Andrew McKenzie said that it was.

Lockett’s motion to delay the agreement pending the outcome of the forensic audit failed 2-2 with Guilfoyle and Brigham opposed.

The attorney who handled most of the legal transactions for the city over the parking deck, Jim Plunkett, was in the hot seat at today’s committee meeting. As we told you last Friday, commissioners were never told about the liens by Plunkett or city administrator Fred Russell, nor were they told that a parcel under the TEE Center itself was never deeded over to the city by Augusta Riverfront, LLC as it was promised on multiple occasions. That took most commissioners by complete surprise. Some commissioners were calling for Plunkett to be removed as the attorney overseeing the project on behalf of the city. That sparked Fred Russell to jump to Plunkett’s defense. Committee chairman Jerry Brigham shouted over everyone that he had heard enough.

Attorney Jim Plunkett told commissioners that he had an agreement from Wachovia (now Wells Fargo) for release from the liens prior to construction of the deck. Plunkett also told commissioners that easements could not be established until after construction of the deck was completed. From the expressions on the faces of commissioners and others in the chambers, it was obvious not many people were buying that line. Bill Lockett asked about the timing and the release of information and why commissioners were consistently left out of the loop.

Commissioner Lockett told Plunkett, “This body has been misled over and over…”

Commissioner Aitken, who is not on the committee but was present in the chambers for other business, urged committee members to forward the parking deck on to the full commission for approval saying that he was proud that Augusta Riverfront, LLC gave things up in the new agreement. But the revised agreement only had minor tweaks and did not address deeding the land to the city as commissioners were originally told it would be at the Dec. 9th, 2009 commission meeting where the TEE Center and deck were approved.

Aitken said, “Sometimes when votes are cast we have to deal with it and move forward.”

But for now, the management agreement is stalled until commissioners get more information. But the city finds itself in a real pickle. According to Jim Plunkett, an agreement between the city and Augusta Riverfront, LLC must occur before the air rights will be released.

Now the big question is: What happens next?


Bowles was absent from the committee meetings today. His position on the matter is crucial. Now the agreement moves on to the full commission next week without any action or recommendation from the committee. All eyes will be watching Bowles. He could be the wild card in all of this.
Stay tuned, we will bring you more updates.***