My Take - the Deloitte Review of the IMH RFP Process Part 2
"The City spent $75,000 and did not even request a review on what people were so angry about. To be clear, Deloitte did the job they were asked to do, I'm not suggesting they did anything wrong, at all. The problem is they were not asked the right questions."
I did a little more digging about the IMH RFP and what I found shocked me. I think you will feel the same when I show you what I uncovered. (I could not copy and paste as it was watermarked so I had to type it all out. If I got something wrong, please let me know. I'm a lousy typist. ;) )
From the latest RFP on the City Bids and Tenders page, this is the City’s own paperwork. I wanted to get a sample of a normal RFP.
3.4.1 Conflict of Interest.
For the purposes of this RFP, the term “Conflict of Interest” includes but it not limited to, any situation or circumstances where:
(a) in relation to the RFP process, the proponent has an unfair advantage or engages in conduct, directly or indirectly that may give an unfair advantage, including but not limited to
(i) having or having access to, confidential information of the City in the preparation of its proposal that is not available to other proponents;
(ii) having been involved in the development of the RFP, including having provided advice or assistance in the development of the RFP;
(iii) receiving advice or assistance in the preparation of its response from any individual or entity that was involved in the development of the RFP;
(iv) communicating with any person with a view to influencing preferred treatment in the RFP process (including but not limited to the lobbying of decision makes involved in the RFP process); or
(v) engaging in conduct that compromises, or could be seen to compromise, the integrity of the open and competitive RFP process or render that process non-competitive or unfair; or
(b) in relation to the performance of its contractual obligations under a contract for the deliverable, the proponent's other commitments, relationships, or financial interests
(i) could, or could be seen to, exercise an improper influence over the objective, unbiased, and impartial exercise of its independent judgment; or
(ii) could, or could be seen to, compromise, impair or be incompatible with the effective performance of its contractual obligations
The definition of Conflict of Interest in the IMH RFP is quite different. The bolding is mine, I typed it out exactly as it appears in the RFP.
It reads -
3.4.1 Conflict of Interest
For the purposes of this RFP, the term “Conflict of Interest” includes, but is not limited to, any situation or circumstance where:
(a) in relation to the RFP process, the proponent, in the opinion of the City Manager, engages, directly or indirectly, in any of the following conduct:
having directly participated in the formal drafting of this RFP, receiving advice or assistance in the preparation of its response from any individual or entity that was involved in the development or subsequent assessment of proponents, or award of the RFP; or communicating with any person with a view to influencing preferred treatment in the RFP process (including but not limited to lobbying of decision makers involved in the RFP process); or
(b) in relation to the performance of its contractual obligations under a written agreement for the Deliverables, the proponent’s other commitments, relationships, or financial interests
(i) could, or could (sic), in the opinion of the City Manager, be seen to, exercise an improper influence over the objective, unbiased, and impartial exercise of its independent judgement; or
(ii) could, or could be seen to, compromise, impair or be incompatible with the effective performance of its contractual obligations.
The alterations look rushed when compared to the original, there are a number of formatting and grammatical errors. I have many questions.
Did Deloitte see what our normal RFP looked like?
Did Deloitte know about Orka expropriating IMH staff?
Did Deloitte know about out City Manager, Bob Nicolay, being given ultimate power with Bylaw 4662 April 19 before the RFP was issued?
The fact that the so-called business people on council thought this was acceptable means not only do have they a different definition of ethics than the rest of us but they seem to think we are morons who will believe what they tell us. The Bob Nicolay Love Fest that happened Oct 4 was embarrassing.
Our mayor feels vindicated - “So what you had was over here were people screaming for corruption malfeasance, criminal activity to ‘Oh you forgot to dot an “I” and cross a “T”. So I am very happy. This is a great report, it is thorough, and it vindicates those people that were frankly dragged through the mud,” Clugston said.
Mr Mayor, nobody was being dragged through the mud, they put themselves there. I did the digging, I presented the facts to the public. I said it did not pass the smell test, that it seemed unethical. I was right. It still stinks to high heaven.
The stench reaches the entire Alberta business community. Not only does City Hall allow this sort of thing to go on but instead of admitting anybody screwed up, they pay $75,000 for an unhelpful review in an attempt to vindicate themselves. Why would anyone come here to do business with us when they see that?
This review is “As useless as a shoe shop in the Shire”
Character is what you do when nobody is watching.
It's time to bring integrity back to City Hall.
Character Matters. Integrity Matters. Honesty Matters
The Old Guard must go!
#imh #rfp #investmedicinehat #deloitte #yxh #medicinehat #conflictofinterest #jasonmelhoff #bobnicolay #kelly4mhcc #charactermatters #integritymatters #honestymatters #clugston #yxhmayor