Anderson's Animals

      Hmmm ... How did Preston award the contract to the architectural firm? Was there something improper there, or are we playing "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" again this morning? 

During a meeting to discuss the project the representatives of the firm stated Preston awarded them the job of design oversight of the project. They bid out their own design for construction. If you do not believe it call them and ask for yourself but. I consider the representative of the firm to be fairly credible. They also designed and over saw the construction of the Anderson Library, the one with the corner sinking, remember?

        Okay, so you're not overly fond of the company that oversaw the design for that project. I still don't clearly see any impropriety here, although I'll admit the opportunity for it was present.
        Obtaining professional services like engineering and architectural plans under the State Procurement Code seems to confuse a lot of people in a lot of places. The selection process for those services isn't based on PRICE. It's based on QUALIFICATIONS.
        That's why, when a county or other local government is seeking a new contract with an engineer or an architect, they put out an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) and not an RFP (Request for Proposals.) I know, I don't like that either, but they've convinced the state legislature that they're special and that it's DEMEANING for people of their high professional standards to have to compete for mere MONEY when their QUALIFICATIONS are so much BETTER than anybody else's. And the law is what it is.
        Once you have an engineering or architectural firm under contract, you're allowed to expand their role to other projects under some circumstances without having to put out a new RFQ. I suspect that's what Preston might have done there, although I'm not totally familiar with the situation.
        That's why I was asking specifically about any impropriety or illegality with the arrangement. The fact that you personally don't like either the process or the company in question doesn't make it either wrong or illegal for Preston to have used that firm.
         Details, my friend, details. Enough sloppy mud. Give us some GOOD dirt we can plant 'maters in, not stuff that we have to put our hipwaders on just to muddle through.

Why does openess and transparency have "nothing to do" with this project?

They have everything to do with every project..but especially this one..

the amount of smoke that has been flying about it indicate there is a fire somewhere..so the unwillingness to make this information available..from a group that ran on platforms of "open and transparent" is mystyfying...

  they put out an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) and not an RFP (Request for Proposals.)

-jdtippett

RFQ stands for Request for Quotation

and again

      "RFQ" stands for "Request for Qualifications" in the context of selecting an architectural or engineering firm to oversee a project on behalf of a local government. "Request for Quotations" is generally a preliminary step in the procurement process for construction and other services that us used to determine how much interest there is among companies who may want to do the project.
 
       S.C. PROCUREMENT CODE, SECTION 11-35-3220. Qualifications-based selection procedures.

       Architects and engineers do not have to compete on the basis of price, even though that obviously can be a factor during the interview process. Local governments may select the firm of their choice based on any number of factors: Proximity, experience with similar projects, timing considerations, etc., etc., etc.They are under no obligation unde the State Procurement Code to take any engineering or architectural firm's lowball bid.
       But you can call it anything you want to, I guess, to obscure the point I was making, which is that there is no OBVIOUS illegality in how Preston awarded the contract for design of the new animal shelter in Anderson County. There may well have been irregularities, but nothing 1-Opinion posted is evidence. Right now, it's all just speculation and dirty politics. 

      "RFQ" stands for "Request for Qualifications" in the context of selecting an architectural or engineering firm to oversee a project on behalf of a local government.

       But you can call it anything you want to, I guess, to obscure the point I was making.

-jdtippett

I don't think anyone is trying to "obscure" anything. The South Carolina Codes of Laws Title 11 Chapter 35 SOUTH CAROLINA CONSOLIDATED PROCUREMENT CODE makes no mention of RFQ's. All of the definitions are clearly stated in SECTION 11-35-310. "DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS CODE".

In addition, if you read the code carefully you will note there is not a specific "request for qualifications" but an invitation for submission of information. Based on submissions from that invitation to participate, the criteria for selection is:

(a) The agency selection committee shall evaluate each of the persons or firms interviewed in view of their:
(i) past performance;
(ii) the ability of professional personnel;
(iii) demonstrated ability to meet time and budget requirements;
(iv) location and knowledge of the locality of the project if the application of this criterion leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project;
(v) recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms;
(vi) creativity and insight related to the project;
(vii) related experience on similar projects;
(viii) volume of work awarded by the using agency to the person or firm during the previous five years, with the objective of effectuating an equitable distribution of contracts by the State among qualified firms including Minority Business Enterprises certified by the South Carolina Office of Small and Minority Business Assistance and firms that have not had previous state work; and
(ix) any other special qualification required pursuant to the solicitation of the using agency.

As you can see the requested info goes far beyond only their qualifications. Is it really so hard for you to say "I stand corrected?" Just because this procurement process is based on qualifications versus dollar bids does not make RFQ=Request For Qualifications.

I get your point thoroughly; however, since so much of the previous administrations game was "obscured" with semantics let's be sure we are all talking about the same thing.

     SCalways, do a Google search for AIA (that's the American Institute of Architects) and RFQ (REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS) and you'll see what the commonly accepted meaning of RFQ is.
      It's apprently no more difficult for me to say "I stand corrected" than it is for YOU to say the same thing, now is it?
      Speaking of which, you're accusing me of confusing things with "semantics" but I would contend that I am not the one who is doing that. YOU are. Let's just assume for a minute (without accusing you of being wrong on the meaning of "RFQ" or of admitting that I am), that neither one of is correct and that RFQ stands for something neither one of us has claimed.
       The basic fact remains that architects and engineers are selected by local governments through a process that doesn't reference COST as the primary determining factor. 1-Opinion accused Joey Preston of "awarding" that contract to the firm chosen, indicating that Preston did not follow any type of process in doing so.
        1-Opinion alleged wrongdoing by Preston without providing any evidence that such wrongdoing existed. I challenged him on that point - NOT on what the initials "RFQ" stand for - and YOU jumped in to divert the discussion into an argument over semantics.
        SCalways, I've worked with RFQs before through both architects and engineers. But I frankly don't give a damn what you think RFQ stands for or what I think it stands for. (I do know what architects and engineers think it stands for, though, and they're the ones responding to RFQs every day.)
         The issue is whether or not Joey Preston did anything wrong in procuring the services of a firm to develop plans for the proposed Animal Shelter. We have a member who implied that he did, indeed, engage in improper activity. I'm simply asking for the proof.
         So, you can believe whatever you want to. You can say "RFQ" stands for "Request for Quaaludes" for all I care. It's no skin off my ass when you're wrong, and in this case it's irrelevant to the initial tit-for-tat between me and 1-Opinion.
         Don't want to play semantics? Fine. Don't start it. And stop changing the subject.
         Now, 1-Opinion, still waiting for that evidence here. What do you have for us? Anything other than political spin and potentially bogus allegations?

JD - The architectural firm was awarded many projects and there was no bid process. I'll go with what the firm representatives said. If they are wrong, you prove it and correct them as well. At some point you and others have to be as accountable for your "statements" as you expect the few of us to be who do not see things as you do. You can get that in writing and post it as a pdf file can't you?

     SCalways, do a Google search for... what the commonly accepted meaning of RFQ is.

-jdtippett

I did and here are the results. I don't even see your definition even listed. In all fairness I did check the AIA site and see they use that term as you describe; however, you were talking about what the SC procurement code said and that is what I was talking about (you now change the subject to the AIA). The procurement code covers a whole lot more than just architects.

Wow, such hostility, cursing and carrying on. I guess you can get away with it since you run the show here. As to "jumping in" or "changing the subject", just because that is how you choose to see it doesn't make it so. But again yes sir, you are the boss, you run the ship the way you see fit. Just stop pretending this forum is free and open.

...you're accusing me...

-jdtippett

It is a sad world where every statement is taken as an accusation and every opinion a stab.

1-Opinion accused Joey Preston of "awarding" that contract to the firm chosen, indicating that Preston did not follow any type of process in doing so. 1-Opinion alleged wrongdoing by Preston without providing any evidence that such wrongdoing existed.

-jdtippett

And you know for a fact Preston did everything the way it was supposed to be done? Oddly enough Tippett I see you make many many derrogatory and accusatory statements about the current council and never see any proof posted. Do you have proof of every opinion you post? I think not. Why do you not live by the rules you espouse?

I challenged him on that point... and YOU jumped in

-jdtippett

Do you not think that matter is between 1-Opinion and Preston (if he chooses to take it up with 1-Opinion) and YOU jumped in. I know you are the owner of this site and if your excuse is you are protecting the site, then why do you not enforce this same policy and attitude on wyatt and angel and the others who make many many accusations without any proof whatsoever. Your argument is lost in that you have never enforced anything even handedly. Your excuse has always been, "well people have said things in the past and now it is their turn". So when does it become the other peoples turn again? If you are claiming some moral code of conduct then it shouldn't matter who said what when, the code should always be the same.

We have a member who implied that he did, indeed, engage in improper activity. I'm simply asking for the proof.

-jdtippett

So someone cannot have an opinion based on what a friend told them or a conversation they overheard or even documents they saw but can't necessarily publish. In order to satisfy you they have to prove it to you. You don't hold yourself to those same standards and we are expected to swallow everything you say as though it is gospel.

Don't want to play semantics? Fine. Don't start it. And stop changing the subject.

-jdtippett

If I do want to play semantics, change the subject and stand on my head, doesn't mean you have to read it or respond to it. Am I harming someone somehow or is it just you want to be the big dog and everyone else a stepping stool? You are taking yourself way too seriously mister.

My uncle once told me, "if you go through life stepping on people, one day you will step on someone who has had a bad day with nothing to lose." I thought that to be very good advice. Don't you?

Needless to say, OP and Sc both continued to evade and avoid any direct answers to the question called.  Instead, a wonderful dance number called RFQ and "he said, I SAID!"

Matrix was not awarded any "contract'.  Other wise, the DAMNED  thing would have been in final phase of completion.  Misleading statement #1 on your part.

No land deal has been signed, unless you can scan and post that document.  Rusty Burns hasn't seen that document.  Unless it's buried in Waldreps' "I lost that invoice" file on his desk, you misled #2.

No Requests for bids have been posted or advertised, unless you can again post those to refute. #3.

No public input or meetings about this shelter have been had since LAST year.  Our attempts to reach an answer in council have been rebuffed.  That addresses your inference that the "concerned citizens" did not inquire.   If you can show, either by approved minutes or documentation of meetings that the council HAS addressed this, please post. Othetwise, that gets another fallacy point on you.

Total so far, four fouls no scores.

The semantic battle.  You can have a dozen analogies for a three letter monogram.  WTF can stand for where's the fire,  when's the feast, who's the fox,  or what the f***.    So both of you are correct, but still, as an evasive tactic, it gets a 1/2 point off.

The semantic battle.  You can have a dozen analogies for a three letter monogram.  WTF can stand for where's the fire,  when's the feast, who's the fox,  or what the f***.    So both of you are correct, but still, as an evasive tactic, it gets a 1/2 point off.

-wyatt1sc

Im just wondering...who is responsible for re-designing a facility that was designed by a community wide group of citizens, elected officials and county employees?

And what did they design it to be? Will it meet ASPCA standards..since that is the standard guideline for designing such facilities?

How big will it be...

Those are all extremely legitimate questions that are..once again..being avoided and evaded....

Why?

I must have missed when the plans for the first shelter were put on-line or that you complained loudly that the last administration failed to offer such a degree of thoughtful service to the county and those who really cared. LOL palmetto-native, exactly which county employee or Councilman did you ask who avoided and evaded the questions you have? You mean the ATZ members have not answered your questions for you and you hold the county responsible. Jeezus SSHM

Wyatt, your failure to understand your failure to understand is amazing. Because the shelter hasn't been built doesn't mean that Matrix didn't have a contract for that or any other building project. In fact buddy, what did the county pay for the design? Must have been less than Preston's spending limit as there was no contract, right? <g>

There were public meetings over the design of the last shelter building Opie...

how silly of you to "forget" that.

Its funny watching you squirm trying to justify the actions of this group when you are part of a group that spent years condemning them in others.

One of my favorite moments at this week's Council meeting was when the Council and Rusty Burns spent several minutes talking about the county's bid procedures, and then Gracie said, "That's got something to do with contracts and stuff, right?" Dear god, this woman is a ten year veteran of the Council. everyone bear that in mind. Ten years. Since Greer got kicked to the curb, she is the senior member of Council. And she makes staements at least that stupid and uninformed several times a meeting. No wonder her crowd is down to Wyatt, Angel, Candy Kane and Bradshaw. Even Dianna Vossbrink is becoming scarce at the meetings.

The animal shelter project began undergoing significant modification when the Glenns saw what a Rin Tin Taj Mahal was being planned and they stopped the transfer of the 12 acres they had donated. The new Council then reviewed the plans and the project was put on the back burner until those plans could be reviewed. The council fully intends to build the facility, as can be seen by the fact that the current budget includes a full time in house veterinarian for the animal shelter. This will prevent uncertified, unlicensed personnel from performing euthansia under an absentee vet's license - a direct and serious violation of state law

There were public meetings over the design of the last shelter building Opie...
how silly of you to "forget" that.
Its funny watching you squirm trying to justify the actions of this group when you are part of a group that spent years condemning them in others.

-palmetto-native

Squirming m'dear? Not me. I asked when they put the design on line? Has the design changed? Who did you ask that evaded your questions? What public meetings are you referring to? Are they the ones held with Eddie Moore when the plans were questioned and the air transfer filters and system were questioned for maintenace cost as well as other engineering quastions? As I said, I may have missed the dates for any public hearings or unveiling of the design, you seem to know when they happend, why not name the dates and times of those meetings?

. . . why not name the dates and times of those meetings?

-1-opinion

See Opie that's the issue . . .

If it was a committee meeting, a specially called committee meeting, or anything other than a regular council meeting, you are hard pressed to find actual written or electronic proof that those meetings ever occurred.

Isn't that a violation of the law? Section 30-4-90, I believe .... hmmm ....

- SSHM