“The market worked; the free market worked.” – Dave Wissel
If Commissioner Dave Wissel’s perception of a free market embraces the manipulation of a competitive RFP process to ensure competition is purposefully quashed by those who should have been actively and enthusiastically competing, then, yeah, his perception ruled the day. The Request for Proposal (RFP) process is the epitome of competition, with issuers seeking the most responsive, qualified, cost-effective bid or proposal from competing parties. When competition is removed, the process becomes a sham.
There is no doubt John Woodward, who turned out to be the successful proposer in response to the Platte Valley School District’s RFP for the sale of 599 Rosalie, would be a contender. His Deer Valley Park Association comprises over 700 acres adjacent to the 599 Rosalie property. Woodward is a long-time Park County Land and Water Trust Fund member. He is a long-time compadre of Dave Wissel. Both served on the Land and Water Trust Fund together. Woodward and Commissioner Amy Mitchell are active in the Cattleman’s Association; Woodward is a real cowboy, while Mitchell is a wannabe cowgirl.
Barring any Yahoo from Texas or elsewhere submitting a responsive proposal to the RFP, it was assured two proposals would be offered: one from the county and the other from John Woodward. If the county’s bid were non-responsive at the get-go, was the county complicit in assuring the opposite of free market capitalism would prevail?
The bottom line, the essential requirement of the RFP for the sale of the 599 Rosalie property by the Platte Canyon School board was this:
The Property is being offered for sale at a minimum price of $875,000.00.
Minimum prices noted in RFPs mean just that. Any bid offered must meet or exceed the stated minimum. If the bid is below the minimum, the offer is non-responsive to the requirements of the RFP.
I retired several years ago as the Director of Purchasing for the City and County of Denver. During my career, I issued bids and RFPs for all sorts of goods and services, conducted surplus property auctions, which are competitive bid processes, and negotiated contract terms and conditions with successful proposers and bidders. At that time, we procured more than $150,000,000 of goods and services annually.
The proposal offered by the Park County Board of Commissioners was $825,000, $50,000 less than the required minimum proposal. Thus, the BOCC proposal was non-responsive the second that amount was entered on the bid form.
Why did the BOCC offer a non-responsive bid?
The answer can only be they intended to provide a non-responsive bid. Thus, their effort was not only an insult to the Platte Canyon School Board but an in-your-face intended insult to the citizens of the county who were passionate about retaining this property as a park for recreational purposes and a wildlife habitat.
In this case, Wissel’s insistence that the free market worked is an egregiously false statement. It’s called gaslighting, an intent to convince those not wholly engaged with this pitiful BOCC effort to manipulate the sale of the property into believing something untrue.
The free market did not work in this case. There was no free market. There was no competition because the BOCC chose not to compete. They offered a non-responsive proposal. The only responsive proposer, John Woodward, was the only proposal that could be evaluated. The essence of the RFP–creating a competitive market–was lost to the forgone conclusion the county would not compete.
There is no doubt that when the BOCC unanimously agreed to a motion to consider the 599 Rosalie property purchase, Wissel, being Wissel, said Sure, let’s do that. After discussing the issue, Wissel, being Wissel, voted NO to go forward with the process of formulating a proposal. Amy Mitchell and Dick Elsner voted yes. In his own words, Wissel was never in favor of the county pursuing the purchase of this property.
Was Amy Mitchell’s vote to proceed with the proposal process a calculated decision? The calculation? She will be up for re-election next year, and all those emails she got, and all those impassioned pleas from the community could not be ignored. Did she understand the metal would only hit the road when the county offered its proposal? In the interim, was she seeking justification for, as it turned out, submitting a non-responsive bid that would guarantee Wissel’s NO ruled the day?
We do not know the detail of the confidential discussions that occurred amongst the BOCC in the executive session when the matter of what price would be offered for the Rosalie property, or if any discussion was had to include in their proposal the worth of the property as articulated by those passionate in the community who begged that it be preserved for recreational and habitat conservation purposes. Could Wissel have been the driving force in insisting a non-responsive price be offered? Was his suggested price even below that which was offered-$825,000? Did Commissioner Elsner argue at least the appraisal price and minimum acceptable price of $875,000 should be offered? Did Amy Mitchell suggest a compromise but fell to Wissel’s insistence that a non-responsive bid must be their best and final offer?
We do not know what happened behind those closed doors. Is the above scenario likely, though? I think it is.
Just a note about Wissel’s twice that I know of complaint about the length (192 pages) of the Platte Canyon RFP. What’s in that RFP is the school district’s boilerplate, a bid form, and the appraisal. I read it, and it took about 10 minutes. The appraisal document contains a demographic narrative, comparables, and the company’s boilerplate. Anyone with any RFP experience will know what can be glanced at and what must be digested from that document. To complain that it was long is to complain only to further a nefarious agenda–to assure there is a cloud over the process, to highlight a negative perspective.
Let’s take a look at Amy Mitchell practicing the art of obfuscation.
Mitchell said, “The structure of that RFP…it asks us some things that were not appropriate for a county, and so the steps that we took were to reach out and begin a conversation with the seller… We initially sent a letter of interest, a letter of intent to bid, then we did put out the bid that you guys saw…”
Suffice it to say, the county’s bid was dead in the water when the decision was made to offer a bid unresponsive to the RFP requirements.
Mitchell said, “…it [the county’s proposal] showed what concerns and issues from the county perspective how moving forward, what concerns we had to be able to move forward.”
The county had seven exceptions to the RFP. Exceptions, what Mitchell calls concerns and issues, can only be considered from responsive bids. Again, the county’s proposal was dead in the water when the decision was made to offer a bid unresponsive to the RFP requirement.
Mitchell said, “And, the way it looks like it happened the school board just opened the bids and made a decision based on that and did not enter into any additional conversation.”
I don’t know whether to call Mitchell’s comments obfuscation or gaslighting. Both, I guess. Yes, the school board opened the bids according to what was set out in the RFP. They made a decision based on what was stated in the RFP. Mitchell’s incredulity with these facts suggests she believed something else was possible, that regardless of the BOCC’s decision to offer a non-responsive bid, there would ensue a period of Kumbaya between the school board and the BOCC, “additional conversation” would be commenced and all would be right with the world.
Mitchell said, “So that’s the steps that we took. …There were many issues of concern at the county level those issues were addressed in our bid. …The RFP never stated that a decision was going to be made, or how a decision would be made, and that bid was to start a negotiation about some of the issues that were in that RFP… “
Some might suggest Mitchell was outright lying about the RFP not providing how a decision would be made. Or was it that she did not read the RFP? There is no mystery, or there should be no mystery, that RFPs are issued, opened, and upon evaluation, and after any necessary negotiation, a decision is made. Mitchell said she had read the RFP thoroughly. Another lie? Or, I suppose it’s possible she doesn’t understand how RFPs work. She claims many years of experience in the corporate world, even owning her own business. But, c’mon… Really?
Verbatim from the RFP: All proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee appointed by the Owner. The offered purchase price is not the only factor to be considered. Acceptance of a proposal is specifically conditioned upon approval by the Owner’s Board of Education, following a recommendation by the selection committee.
I suspect Dave Wissel and Amy Mitchell would like to move beyond the embarrassment of this ugly saga. Saying that, though, I wonder if Wissel isn’t still slapping high-fives and taking victory laps up there in Fairplay. Once again, he has affirmed his position as the indisputable King of Land and Water, the all-knowing, righteous demagogue whose incestuous relationship with county government, the now faux Republican party, water conservancy districts, and enterprises remain his domain, his kingdom.
So too, I suspect his (and Mitchell’s too) constant cheerleaders, the South Park Outsiders, and their fellow travelers, are comforted that another blow has been struck for Constitutional Conservatism, Christian Nationalism, and all those ideological misperceptions that affirm only they are We the People. A misperception that those whose passion for the preservation of a jewel on the Bailey side of Kenosha are not We the People. No, they believe those people are only misguided souls who think community trumps unfettered individual freedom, only the wimp component in a society where only God, Guns, and Guts matter.
Finally, here is another instance of Wissel’s trademark voice tremor spewing a condescending, patronizing “SIRRRRRR!” His use of the words “serious cloud” only highlights his consistent effort to place a cloud over the purchase of the Rosalie property, a cloud designed to impress the gullible. We also have Commissioner Dick Elsner’s closing comments.
Lastly, just an example of who Dave Wissel is.
