Letters to the Editor

Letter to the Editor | PenMet’s compliance with public bidding process for Madrona

You may remember that PenMet told ZTM that they would have to conduct a public competitive bidding process before awarding any management agreement.  This is substantiated by the following posting on PenMet’s website:

Finally, as a public agency, PenMet Parks must comply with competitive solicitation and selection requirements and may not arbitrarily award a contract to a private party. PenMet Parks anticipates using a formal Request for Proposal process to encourage proposals from experienced, professional golf course operators and managers when the current lease nears its expiration in 2028.

 The law for metropolitan park districts requiring public bidding

RCW 35.61.135 (relevant portion)

Contracts—Competitive bidding—Small works roster—Exemption.

(1) All work ordered, the estimated cost of which is in excess of $20,000, shall be let by contract and competitive bidding. Before awarding any such contract the board of park commissioners shall publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation where the district is located at least once 13 days before the last date upon which bids will be received, inviting sealed proposals for such work, plans, and specifications which must at the time of publication of such notice be on file in the office of the board of park commissioners subject to the public inspection. The notice shall state generally the work to be done and shall call for proposals for doing the same to be sealed and filed with the board of park commissioners on or before the day and hour named therein.

PenMet’s recently adopted purchasing policy

3.1 Procurement Type – Goods and Services: This Section 3 applies to the procurement of goods and services. “Goods”, as used in this Section include materials, supplies and equipment but does not include art. “Services”, as used in this Section includes personal and professional services.  Services, as used in this Section, does not apply to architectural, engineering land surveying services, or technology.

3.4  Formal Procurements: Any purchase of Goods or Services with an estimated cost of fifteen thousand dollars or more shall be made by competitive bidding following the procedure for letting contracts for projects under RCW 35.61.135(1).

I completely agree with PenMet’s position as stated on its website and as adopted in its updated Purchasing Policy.  My  question now is:  Has PenMet complied with RCW 35.61.135(1) and Section Paragraph 3.4 of its Purchasing Policy when it comes to awarding the Madrona operating agreement?

This would not be the first time PenMet has not complied with RCW 35.61.135

The Washington State Auditor’s Office chastised PenMet after auditing PenMet’s 2022 financial statements for violating RCW 35.61.135.  They entered into a million dollar contract in that situation.  No minor infraction.  How would the State  Auditor view this situation?

PenMet’s webpage listing current and future projects

PenMet has a webpage dedicated to current and future projects.  The awarding of the management agreement for Madrona is not listed there.

FOIA request

I have filed a FOIA request for the documentation relating to the Madrona management agreement that will show compliance with RCW 35.61.135(1).  That documentation should include:

1. The Notice of Publication in a newspaper of general circulation
2. Proof that publication occurred at least 13 days before bids were to be received
3. A general descriptions of the work to be done
4. A description of the work, plans, and specifications that were available at the PenMet offices at the time of publication
5. Copies of all bids received

I know that PenMet received at least two informal proposals for managing the Madrona golf course from locals, both of whom either had personal knowledge of managing a golf course or had named a person with that knowledge who would be responsible for overseeing the Madrona management.  One even included investment in the golf course.

I’ve heard that PenMet is still conducting negotiations to award the management agreement, be it a lease or a contract for services.  This raises the following questions:

• I wonder how any current proposals compare to the two local parties’ proposals?
• Did PenMet even get that far with the locals or did they dismiss them without considering their offers in detail?
• Did PenMet do the work to get the details on the two local proposals?
• If applicable, did PenMet give any weight to the benefit to the greater Gig Harbor area of having locals do the work thereby keeping the payments in our local economy?

There are exceptions to the competitive bidding process and if PenMet is alleging that one of those exceptions applies, I would accept that if they’re correct.  However, that raises the question of why did PenMet not use that same exception to open negotiations with ZTM in the beginning?

Craig McLaughlin

Fox Island