Peter P. O’Such
Guest Column
Park Service extension troubles local resident
I am quite certain most area residents have learned by now of the National Park Service (NPS) granting a six-month extension to the Letter of Intent, which was initially issued to James Wassel of Sandy Hook Partners (SHP) Nov. 29, 2001 (more than 24 months ago). As stated by NPS, the new six-month extension was granted for the express purpose of providing Mr. Wassel this additional time to secure financial commitments for the funding of the proposed historic rehabilitation of the Fort Hancock buildings at Sandy Hook. This latest extension and its rationale greatly troubles me, and others who are familiar with this NPS.
Inept and improper procurement because proof of financial capability to accomplish the project was required to be a part of all initial offer proposals received by the Nov. 8, 1999, due date from all offerors, including SHP (a.k.a. Wassel Realty Group).
That is correct; more than four years prior to this latest extension which has been granted to provide Mr. Wassel six additional months to secure project funding, the NPS required all firms that submitted initial offers on Nov. 8, 1999, to provide proof in said offer(s) that financial capability to accomplish the project had already been secured. One must accept that this requirement did indeed apply to Mr. Wassel’s firm, and causes any reasonable person to ask, What is the legal basis that permits the NPS to now permit SHP to try to obtain financial capability to satisfy a requirement that the initial, Nov. 8, 1999, offer was to have addressed and satisfied?
This requirement was made known and binding to all interested parties by the NPS. This was first done when the NPS advertised this procurement in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) Aug. 19, 1999. (The CBD is the premier advertising mechanism for the federal government and is published by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.) In the subject CBD notice, the NPS stated, "The Park Service will consider all proposals that are consistent with the park’s General Management Plan, and that demonstrate sufficient fiscal resources to undertake a public-private partnership." If SHP is still seeking such fiscal resources presently, how could it have complied with this requirement and have been evaluated as the best qualified offeror?
In the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued in August 1999 by the NPS to prospective offerors, at Section 5, Financial Capability and Assurances (just prior to the start of Section 6), it states: "Identify the source(s) of all funds needed. As a general instruction for this section, please be aware that it is necessary that compelling evidence (NPS underlining for emphasis) of proposer’s ability to obtain the necessary funds be provided. Be specific. Identify all sources and provide complete documentation. Explain fully the financial arrangements you propose to use. A commitment to discuss the project is not a commitment to loan or provide funds.
"Document the source and availability of all funds with current audited financial statements financing agreements, letters of commitment, and supporting documents from all sources.
"If funds are to be obtained from lending institutions (NPS underlining for emphasis) (banks, savings and loans, etc.) the letter (bearing the lending institutions (sic) letterhead) of commitment must include as a minimum the amount of the loan, amount of interest, term of the loan, and all encumbrances upon the loan."
Well, folks, if Mr. Wassel’s offer had complied with the above RFP quote, would he now be searching for a source of funding for this project? I don’t think so. Yet, despite these proofs that the SHP/WRG offer was not acceptable or in compliance with the NPS RFP, the NPS has granted SHP the additional six-month extension period to now do what the RFP initially required of all offerors on Nov. 8, 1999, more than four years ago.
How can this be permitted?
Peter P. O’Such Jr. is a resident of Fair Haven and a retired federal procurement official with the U.S. General Services Administration.