temporary restraining order - Finance & Commerce

More documents

Recommendations

Info

architect, engineer, or construction manager with respect to all or any part of an eligible project and related public infrastructure.” Session Laws 2012 chapter 293, sec. 33, subd. 3. That language authorized the City to hire an architect, engineer, an construction manager, but nothing in that language expressly exempts such contracts from the statutorily mandated competitive procurement processes. Similarly, the Bonding Statute authorized delivery of the Project through the design-build or the construction manager at-risk methods. See id. The City elected to use the design-build method. See Wieland Aff. Exhibit D (Ryan press release stating “Ryan Companies has been retained by the City of Saint Paul as the Design-Builder, including Architect of Record for the project.”). Design-build projects are required to be competitively procured just as much as any other type of project. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 161.3410 – 161.3426 (MnDOT best-value design-build project procurement requirements). Nothing in the language authorizing use of the design-build and construction manager at-risk project delivery methods expressly exempts the City from competitive procurement requirements. The City is likely relying upon the language in the Bonding Statute giving Capital Project Grant recipients powers “as are granted under section 473.756.” See Session Laws 2012 chapter 293, sec. 33, subd. 3. Notably, Section 473.756 is part of the legislation creating and empowering the Minnesota Ballpark Authority to build the new Twins major league baseball stadium now known as Target Field. See Minn. Stat. §§ 473.75 – 473.759. Section 473,756 created a separate Ballpark Authority which is a state agency; the City of St. Paul is a municipal entity. Thus, the City may only exercise the powers of the Authority as expressly granted by the Bonding Statute. Section 473.756 empowered the new Ballpark Authority to enter contracts. The authority may contract for materials, supplies, and equipment in accordance with sections 471.345 and 473.754, except that the authority, with the consent of the county, may employ or contract with persons, firms, or corporations to N:\PL\85155\85155-001\1607234.docx 10
perform one or more or all of the functions of architect, engineer, or construction manager with respect to all or any part of the ballpark and public infrastructure. Minn. Stat. § 473.756 subd. 12. That language largely echoes the contracting power given to the Capital Project Grant recipients in the Bonding Statute except that it explicitly refers to the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, section 471.345. Compare Minn. Stat. § 473.756 subd. 12 with Session Laws 2012 chapter 293, sec. 33, subd. 3. Section 473.756 requires competitive bidding or best value procurement under §471.345. Section 473.754 requires affirmative action, which only a public authority can implement. Thus, rather than expressly exclude a competitive process, §473.756 expressly requires it. Section 473.756 goes on to say, “except that the authority, with the consent of the county, may employ or contract with… corporations to perform one or more or all of the functions of architect, engineer, or construction manager with respect to all or any part of the ballpark…” This is not an express exemption from public procurement processes. Instead, it merely makes clear, in a way that §471.345 does not, that the City may also use design build procurement. Because the City (as opposed to the Authority) must obey the Municipal Contracting Act (i.e. §471.345), the City must competitively procure the design- builder for the Project. Because §473.756 expressly allows the use of design-build as a delivery method, the City must use public ‘best value’ procurement methods to select that design-builder. Indeed, the language “with the consent of the county” only makes sense when applied to the Ballpark Authority because Hennepin County was involved with the Twins stadium. Ramsey County is not involved in this Project. This is further proof that the Legislature, by referencing §473.756, only intended to grant the City express right to used ‘best value’ procurement in conjunction with the design-build delivery system.. Even if the ”with consent of the county” clause applies to the Capital Project Grant recipients, its plain language does not include an exemption from competitive procurement requirements. See Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (1) (“words N:\PL\85155\85155-001\1607234.docx 11
Page 1 and 2: STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT C
Page 3 and 4: Stat. § 116J.433, governing those
Page 5 and 6: On September 13, 2012, the Minnesot
Page 7 and 8: consideration and the other three f
Page 9: Aff. Exhibit H). The legislature de
Page 13 and 14: was not authorized to give a multi-
Page 15 and 16: City failed to test that assumption
Page 17 and 18: “proper challenges to the bid-let
Page 19 and 20: St. Paul chose to violate well-esta

temporary restraining order - Finance & Commerce

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?