Funds Transfers to DCHA Total $120M
The D.C. Council has just gaveled to order a hearing on parks contracts transferred by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty in such a way as to evade council oversight.
The issue goes beyond the $82 million in parks spending already identified. According to figures obtained by LL, the Fenty administration has authorized $120.7 million in spending to be sent out to the D.C. Housing Authority. Those funds came from projects budgeted by both the parks department and the deputy mayor for planning and economic development. About $72 million of that has already been sent to DCHA.
The projects built through this method included not only the parks projects already identified, but rebuilds of Walker-Jones Education Center and the Deanwood Recreation Center totaling over $74 million. Both of those projects were managed by a team that included Banneker Ventures, the firm owned by developer Omar Karim, who has close ties to the mayor. And the scope of parks work has expanded to include as many as 26 projects.
LL will be following the hearing from the John A. Wilson Building, and will be Tweeting away!
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
Blogs Linking to this Article
-
Linked From: October 30th, 2009The Definition Of BS? - City Desk - Washington City Paper
12:46 pm[...] questions related to the parks contracts to Fenty’s frat brothers. Then why is there a hearing going on? Maybe Nickles needs to read LL’s latest [...]
-
Linked From: November 2nd, 2009Does Not Play Well With Others: Loose Lips Daily - City Desk - Washington City Paper
9:46 am[...] IN CASE YOU MISSED IT—”Why Adrian Fenty’s Parks Contracting Scheme Is an Outrage“; “Pershing Park Case: New Discovery Abuse Shocker“; “Funds Transfers to DCHA Total $120M” [...]
12:11 pm
Much as I hate twitter, I hate watching DC Council hearings even more. So you have my deepest gratitude for covering these two hearings. How much worse is doing it onsite than from the office? Outside the Invertebrate House (oops, I mean the Wilson Building), at least you can scream, laugh aloud, and eat.
12:21 pm
RE Albert's comment that none of the parks projects have gone to the contract award stage. That's interesting because as of Oct 19-25th, DMPED's website named Banneker Ventures and Regan Associates (along with DCHE and DPR) as its "development partners" for these facilities.
http://www.dcbiz.dc.gov/dmped/cwp/view,A,1365,Q,608842.asp
click individuals project links -- eg 7th and N St. http://www.dcbiz.dc.gov/dmped/cwp/view,A,1365,Q,610039.asp for examples.
Or is this just the usual DMPED BS about entering into exclusive negotiations with a preferred partner prior to agreeing to any terms whatsoever? Way to make a mockery of the competitive bidding process!
1:35 pm
LL is in the press room, not in the chamber, enjoying the esprit de corps with his journalistic colleagues.
Regarding your second point, Albert says the "program manager" contract with Banneker/Regan has indeed been signed. It's the contracts w/ architects, engineers, GC's etc. that haven't been signed. Of course, that raises the question---if no ocntracts have been signed, why is Fenty doing groundbreakings left and right?
1:42 pm
Why is there no open-access WiFi in the Council Chambers? A DC non-password-protected gov't WiFi option pops up, but doesn't actually deliver the goods. Would have been particularly useful while I was down there yesterday for the marathon DCPS hearing.
2:09 pm
Is there a big difference between tweeting and live blogging?
2:27 pm
Fenty is doing groundbreakings left and right because he's running for re-election and some journalists just print the press release. Northwest One last week was particularly laughable in that regard. Deal made last summer; construction might start next Spring. Wait a minute, just why are we standing here in October??
Fuck reality baby, we got spin!
And it get him out of the office.
5:26 pm
Looks like GAO flagged this problem in a report back in 2007: http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07159.html
Specifically, GAO pointed out that exempting agencies like WASA and DCHA from DC's Procurement Practices Actand allowing them to develop their own procurement processes and regs jeopardized the integrity of the whole system.
Were any reforms made after 2007? Did Nickles read the report, LOL? (Cool, there's my loophole?)
5:41 pm
(soundbite from that report -- apologies in advance if I didn't succeed in cleaning up format -- there's no preview function)
Twelve District entities, including the Water and Sewer Authority and Housing Authority, are not under the authority of both the District's procurement law and Office of Contracting and Procurement, and are
allowed to follow their own procurement rules and regulations.[Footnote 12] In many cases, the procurement law specifically exempts these
entities from following the law, which is contrary to the central statutory purpose of the District's procurement law to (1) eliminate overlapping or duplication of procurement activities; (2) improve the
understanding of procurement laws and policies by organizations and individuals doing business with the District government; and (3) promote the development of uniform procurement procedures governmentwide. As a result, the District's law has created a procurement environment where some entities follow different rules and practices, undermining the District's ability to capture an overall view of its procurements as well as placing an added burden on vendors to understand how to do business with the District.
According to NASPO, it is essential to have one uniform law that applies to all agencies and their procurements and exclude blanket exemptions for any executive agency or department. If exclusions are necessary, the law should define them narrowly by types of goods and
services procured. NASPO state procurement leaders we spoke with said that they would be unable to effectively run their own procurement
systems without one governing law. Without it, vendors are discouraged from competing since they do not know what rules apply, which increases the risk that taxpayers pay more for goods and services. According to
several former and current CPOs in the District, not having a uniform procurement law that governs all entities has been problematic in ensuring transparency, accountability, and oversight. Officials from
other cities we reviewed agreed that having a common procurement framework is critical for ensuring transparency and integrity in the procurement system.