




           1  STATE OF WISCONSIN 

           2  CITY OF MILWAUKEE 

           3  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW APPEALS BOARD 

           4  MAY 4, 2018 

           5   

           6   

           7   

           8   

           9   

          10   

          11   

          12   

          13   

          14   

          15   

          16   

          17   

          18   

          19   

          20   

          21             

          22             

          23             

          24             

          25             

                                          Page 1 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Administrative Review 

           2  Appeals Board meeting for May 4th, 2018.  Ah, I am the 

           3  chairperson of the board.  My name is Vincent Bobot.  To my 

           4  immediate right is board member Brad Hoeschen.  To his 

           5  right is Steve Fritsche.   

           6            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Good morning. 

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  To my immediate left is 

           8  Linda Elmer; she's our administrative assistant.  And to 

           9  her left is Bill Averill. 

          10            MR. BILL AVERILL:  Good morning.   

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Good morning.   

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  It is our policy, ah, 

          13  that we always have the city go first, unless there's 

          14  something unusual.  It is my understanding that the city 

          15  will present its case first to the board and then at that 

          16  time, the appellant will have his opportunity to sup - ah, 

          17  supply us with the information witnesses he chose for us to 

          18  hear.  All witnesses will be sworn in our by our 

          19  administrative assistant and, ah, the city may com - ah, 

          20  commence.  Could you just state your name for the record, 

          21  please?   

          22            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Ah, Mr. Chairman, before we 

          23  begin, I just have a question.   

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes. 

          25            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Um, what is our role here?  

                                          Page 2 




           1  Is this where we're going to determine whether or not the 

           2  city acted appropriately and followed procedure?  And if 

           3  not, the case is sent back to the city department for 

           4  further review? 

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Ah, that's what I would 

           6  anticipate.  

           7            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Okay. 

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Hoeschen, do you 

           9  have any -  

          10            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I, I would disagree.  I think 

          11  we're making a final decision today on whether or not the 

          12  department acted properly.  Ah, I, I, I don't think it's a 

          13  matter of whether or not the city followed procedure.  I 

          14  think did the city act properly?  If it did, the matter is 

          15  completed.  They've already awarded the contract. 

          16            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Right.  If it didn't, what's 

          17  the -  

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  If it didn't, then -  

          19            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  - the solution? 

          20            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - then we define what the 

          21  remedy is.  It would be the burden of the appellant to tell 

          22  us what the remedy should be, whether that be the award of 

          23  the contract or that be cash damages or something else that 

          24  we haven't contemplated.  Ah, and we can determine whether 

          25  or not they have sufficiently proven that that's a proper 

                                          Page 3 




           1  remedy. 

           2            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Okay. 

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And the reason I kind of 

           4  hedge on it as well is because we don't know what the 

           5  result's going to be. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Ah, well, 

           7  and -  

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  But the city has made its 

           9  determination. 

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes. 

          11            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And it is our job, in my 

          12  view, to determine whether or not the city's determination 

          13  was proper. 

          14            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Ah - at 

          15  some point, and it doesn't have to be now, I would like an 

          16  opportunity to be heard on that matter; um, what this 

          17  board's authority is with regard to, um, its ability to 

          18  either award damages or fashion a remedy.  Um, and if it's 

          19  not now, that's fine, um, but obviously, I would like to 

          20  reserve, um, some time at some point to be heard on that 

          21  issue. 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I agree.  So, um, you 

          23  may commence.  

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  Um, 

          25  I would like to just ask a few questions of Mr. Harlan, ah, 

                                          Page 4 




           1  himself.  Um, I - they're not numerous.  So, if we could 

           2  just kind of get his testimony out of the way, that'd be 

           3  great.  Oh, and just as a kind of an initial matter, um, we 

           4  had discussed putting together, um, a binder of the 

           5  exhibits that he had proposed - I think you have in your e-

           6  book - of, um, for use, ease of use, for the witnesses who 

           7  would be testifying.  I don't have any objection to those 

           8  being offered.  If we could just sort of offer them 

           9  jointly, um, and have them available for the witnesses that 

          10  are testifying, um, I think that would be appropriate.  I 

          11  only have one additional, um, exhibit, which is the, um, 

          12  complete copy of the proposal that was submitted by Quarles 

          13  & Brady, um, for disclosure counsel services; I have copies 

          14  of that.  Mr. Harlan, um, actually requested a full copy of 

          15  that recently, um, and I have copies for everyone here and 

          16  for the witnesses, as well, and obviously for Mr. Harlan, 

          17  as well.  

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I guess the only issue I 

          19  have or the question I have for you is, the questions 

          20  you're going to ask of Mr. Harlan, is he a witness to this 

          21  matter? 

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Exactly what I was wondering. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well -  

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Is Mr. Harlan a fact witness? 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - I think 

                                          Page 5 




           1  he absolutely is. 

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And do you object to him then 

           3  participating as counsel for MWH? 

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, they 

           5  actually relate to his participation as counsel for Quarles 

           6  & Brady.   

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  It's very -   

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  It's interesting, isn't it? 

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, it's very 

          10  problematic from my standpoint.   

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, I 

          12  think it's - this is the problem, um, and I'll lay out my 

          13  argument right now.  The proposal itself was signed by 

          14  Quarles & Brady, not by MWH.  The appeal was filed by 

          15  Quarles & Brady and MWH.  I believe Mr. Harlan, obviously, 

          16  is employed by MWH.  I don't know that he was retained at 

          17  any point by Quarles & Brady and I would like to know 

          18  whether or not that's the case.  I don't think MWH is the 

          19  proper party and interest here.  I don't know that he was 

          20  retained by Quarles & Brady.  And I think if that's the 

          21  case, I don't know that we have any proper party here who 

          22  is represented and I think the appeal should be dismissed 

          23  in its entirety on that basis. 

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Well, but Ms. - I'm sorry, 

          25  Mr. Chair. 

                                          Page 6 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Hoe - Mr. Hoeschen. 

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ms. Block, a, ah, a - he 

           3  represents as an attorney that he represents Quarles & 

           4  Brady. 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Has he 

           6  represented that -  

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Well, sure -  

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - at any 

           9  point? 

          10            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - he's - yes -  

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  We found, we found -   

          12            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Hold on, Mr. Harlan.   

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Oh. 

          14            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  His, his appeal to our board 

          15  was Emery Harlan as attorney for MWH and Quarles & Brady. 

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Has he 

          17  represented that?  When? 

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  That's what the appeal was; 

          19  that's the appeal - the appeal that was filed with us.  I - 

          20  it's - let me get it.   

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, that was my 

          22  understanding, too, but -  

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Every piece 

          24  of paperwork has been filed on MWH's letterhead.   

          25            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I'm -  

                                          Page 7 




           1            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I believe - 

           2  I believe he represents MWH. 

           3            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  But MWH can be counsel for 

           4  Quarles & Brady. 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Sure, it 

           6  could.  Has he been retained by Quarles & Brady?  

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  It's -  

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Does that matter? 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  It's, it's in the appeal 

          10  on the second page. 

          11            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Right.   

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And of course, we just 

          13  had - we had a previous hearing, that issue wasn't raised. 

          14  I would argue, even if it was an issue, it certainly had 

          15  been waived. 

          16            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Nah.  Ah, but do you have the 

          17  appeal? 

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I do. 

          19            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  So the appeal is filed, ah, 

          20  as Emery K. Harlan on behalf of MWH Law Group, LLP and 

          21  Quarles & Brady, LLP. I mean, I trust the word of the 

          22  lawyer that he represents his client.  You're suggesting 

          23  that you want to contest whether or not Quarles & Brady is 

          24  actually his client? 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes.   

                                          Page 8 




           1            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ah, who have you put on your 

           2  witness list from Quarles & Brady to ask about that? 

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK: I haven't 

           4  filed a witness list.  You typically get witness lists, ah, 

           5  from your parties in front of the ARAB?   

           6            UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER:  No, ma'am. 

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  No, we do not. 

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Do you 

           9  require them? 

          10            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Well, go ahead and call 

          11  somebody from Quarles & Brady.  Go ahead and call them; 

          12  have them come over and ask them.  But I don't think that 

          13  asking an attorney who his client is is an appropriate 

          14  question of -  

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Why not? 

          16            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - a client.  Because the - 

          17  well, first of all, the attorney's going to tell you, 

          18  "Yes."  But, secondly, it's -   

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Under oath 

          20  he -  

          21            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - attorney client 

          22  relationship. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - will? 

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  It's an attorney client 

          25  relationship.  It's up to you; it's, it's your call -  

                                          Page 9 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  The only -   

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - as the chair.  I -  

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  The only problem is if I 

           4  - the problem here is once you call him as a witness -  

           5            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Then I'm concerned about 

           6  whether or not -  

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Then it's a problem. 

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I - yeah.  And so, is this a 

           9  tactic in order to disqualify Mr. Harlan from representing 

          10  his client?   

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I have the same 

          12  concerns.  You call him as a, a witness -  

          13            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair -  

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - I don't know if we can 

          15  allow him then to represent -  

          16            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair? 

          17            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes, Mr. Hoeschen? 

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Harlan, would you consent 

          19  to calling someone from Quarles & Brady to come here and 

          20  testify as to whether or not the firm is a client of yours? 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yes, if that person's 

          22  available. I mean, this is just outrageous.  Um, frankly, 

          23  I've had very -  

          24            UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER:  Oh, I'm sorry. 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - interactions with Ms. 

                                         Page 10 




           1  Block. 

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Can you pull the mic up 

           3  a little bit? 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Oh, yes.  Yes.  I - this 

           5  is just really unprofessional in my opinion.  We, we've had 

           6  very amic - amicable relations in terms of exchanging 

           7  information -  

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I mean, she's entitled to 

           9  zealously represent her client, so -  

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah.  Yeah, but come on, 

          11  we have a - we have a manner of professionalism in the bar.  

          12  If this was an issue, she should have given it - given 

          13  notice and not try to, ah, exact the surprise at the 

          14  hearing that wastes everybody's time. 

          15            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  But Mr. Bobot and I - 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  But -  

          17            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - are trying to find a 

          18  solution that allows you to continue as counsel for your 

          19  client while still making sure she has the satisfaction of 

          20  question. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  The, the other issue that 

          22  I would raise is to the extent there was even a legal 

          23  issue.  This issue wasn't raised; we've had - this is the 

          24  second hearing.  We've had - this matter has been pending.  

          25  Ah, I don't believe that she has the ability to raise this 

                                         Page 11 




           1  issue after having consented to it.   

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  But you -  

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah -  

           4            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  You actually agreed with Ms. 

           5  Block that the only purpose of that hearing was to 

           6  determine whether or not we had jurisdiction.  She - I 

           7  don't think she waived that argument because the - we all 

           8  agreed the only purpose of our last hearing was to 

           9  determine whether or not we had jurisdiction.  We 

          10  determined we had jurisdiction.  I mean, I agree with you 

          11  this likely - 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right, but she's -  

          13            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - could have been handled -  

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - coming with a question 

          15  whether I can -  

          16            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - more elegantly. 

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - work in, in 

          18  representing the, ah, Quarles & Brady in this matter.  So 

          19  that issue was just as pertinent in the initial proceeding 

          20  as it is this one.  Ah, if you believe her position is she 

          21  didn't raise it in the initial proceeding before this board 

          22  and so, I would maintain you can dispose of this because 

          23  she has consented to this and has waived the issue.   

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I - Mr. Hoeschen, ah, 

          25  disagrees with your position and quite frankly, so do I.  

                                         Page 12 




           1  Ah, I just know if you become a witness to this, as far as 

           2  I'm concerned, someone else is going to have to take your 

           3  place for the further proceedings. 

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  I 

           5  am, I am happy to accept without putting Mr. Harlan under 

           6  oath his representation that Quarles & Brady has retained 

           7  him.   

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Have they -  

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - retained you? 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah, I filed a document 

          12  with the board saying that I'm the attorney for both of the 

          13  parties in this matter. I mean, what else do I need to do? 

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, that's what you -  

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'm not going to get into 

          16  what the nature of the retention is but I made the 

          17  representation.  I'm a lawyer; I know what that means.  I 

          18  don't know what else I can tell you.   

          19            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Does that satisfy you?  

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes. 

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay.  Well, we've got 

          22  one issue taken care of.  You can proceed. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Alright.  I 

          24  only have - well, and I guess if this is going to be 

          25  bringing up a fact question, I'll have to just make my 

                                         Page 13 




           1  argument and leave it at that.  So now we'll move on to Ms. 

           2  Kelsey's testimony. 

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Thank you. 

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Thank you.   

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Ah, Ms. Kelsey, ah, 

           6  would you raise your right hand, please? 

           7            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Do you solemnly affirm [sic] 

           8  the pains and penalties of perj [sic] in the state of 

           9  Wisconsin that the testimony about to give is the truth, 

          10  the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And could you state your 

          13  name for the record, please? 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Rhonda Kelsey.   

          15            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And could you spell your 

          16  last name? 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  K-e-l-s-e-y. 

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, your witness, Ms. 

          19  Block. 

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Thank you.  

          21  Rhonda, can you speak generally about the nature of the 

          22  difference between a bid and an RFP?  Just generally for 

          23  the benefit of the board. 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Sure.  Um, so, so a bid is a 

          25  competitive procurement process that the city uses to 

                                         Page 14 




           1  receive responses from contractors, um, to provide a good 

           2  or service to the city. 

           3            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair -  

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The -  

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Ah, ah, I'm just going 

           6  to interrupt.  I just wanted to let her finish the 

           7  question. 

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Okay, sorry. 

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Could you just give us a 

          10  little background on her job? 

          11            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Well what, what do you do for 

          12  a living, Ms. Kelsey? 

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Laughter] 

          14  Sure, sorry. 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I am the purchasing director 

          16  for the city of Milwaukee.   

          17            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay. 

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And how long have you held 

          19  that position? 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I've held that position since 

          21  2008. 

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And how long have you worked 

          23  for the city of Milwaukee? 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I've worked for the city of 

          25  Milwaukee since 1996.   

                                         Page 15 




           1            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And what other positions have 

           2  you held with the city? 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Um, what other positions did 

           4  I hold? 

           5            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  With the city -  

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Um, I - 

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Yes. 

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - I started in the budget 

           9  office as a budget analyst.  I moved on to, um, head - what 

          10  is now known as the Office of Small Business Development; 

          11  it was known as the Equal Opportunities Enterprise program.  

          12  Um, the Equal Rights Commission was also a part of the 

          13  department at the time but I would say the equivalent of 

          14  that department, um, now is the Office of Small Business 

          15  Development, which I believe you all are familiar with.  

          16  Um, from there I went on to serve as, um, Mayor Tom 

          17  Barrett's, um, policy coordinator for his first term and 

          18  then I was appointed to serve as the purchasing director in 

          19  2008.   

          20            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And what does the purchasing 

          21  office do? 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So we are responsible for 

          23  administering the procurement process for city departments.  

          24  City departments submit, um, procurement requests to us via 

          25  the form of a requisition.  Um, we issue - um, back to, um, 

                                         Page 16 




           1  Attorney Block's question - we will administer the process 

           2  for the solicit - solicitation of bids from the contracting 

           3  community, as well as requests for proposals. 

           4            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  So is it fair that 

           5  effectively, any product or service purchased by the city 

           6  comes through your department? 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The majority of them.  Now, 

           8  construction is a different, um, bailiwick.  Um, 

           9  construction contracts are led by the Department of Public 

          10  Works so for the most part, we, um, handle the procurement 

          11  process for things like vehicles, water chemicals, paper, 

          12  various other, um, types of commodities and services, 

          13  professional services, legal services; this very, ah, 

          14  service that we're talking about today would be another 

          15  example.  There are some departments, other departments 

          16  that have a certain level of independent contracting 

          17  authority.  DNS, they handle demolition contracts.  Um, 

          18  library, they have a certain level of independent 

          19  contracting authority, as well.  Does that -  

          20            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair - thank you, Ms. 

          21  Kelsey. 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Sure. 

          23            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, ah -  

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay. 

          25            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - do you just want to 

                                         Page 17 




           1  restate your question?  Cause -  

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Sure. 

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - I wanted to wait until 

           4  she finished and I was going to ask for a little 

           5  background. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Sure.  And 

           7  I appreciate that.  Okay, so can you describe, I guess, 

           8  then generally a, a bid process and how that works? 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So, so a - the bid process is 

          10  a procurement process whereby we're looking at awarding the 

          11  contract based on pretty much low, the low bid, in 

          12  accordance with the specifications that we've included in 

          13  the bid document itself, which is, um, advertised in the 

          14  Daily Reporter, if it's a formal bid, which is at $50,000.  

          15  We also advertise the solicitation of bid responses on the 

          16  city's website via e-notify.  Um, so it really is for the 

          17  most part a cut and dry, um, process.  We do - after the 

          18  receipt, after bids come in - um, we, um, there's a review 

          19  of those responses by the purchasing department.  Um, our 

          20  department makes a recommendation to the user department, 

          21  which may be the police department for the purchase of 

          22  squad cars.  Um, we would then ask that department to 

          23  review that recommendation and sign off on it to ensure 

          24  that, you know, the recommendation and award is, um, sound.  

          25  The RFP process is what we consider to be an exception to 

                                         Page 18 




           1  bid process because we're looking at other factors beyond 

           2  just pricing and compliance with the specifications.  

           3  There, um, we use award criteria, um, and so there are 

           4  points that a proposer can earn; um, a maximum of typically 

           5  100 points.  Um, bonus points are typically, um, offered to 

           6  proposers, SBE participation, as well as, um, LBE 

           7  participation.  So 25 points may be allocated - or could be 

           8  earned - um, relative to a proposer's methodology.  Twenty-

           9  five points may be designated, um, for experience.  And so, 

          10  um, there are a number of factors that are used to 

          11  determine who the highest ranked proposer is.  There's 

          12  also, obviously as you know at this point, um, an 

          13  evaluation committee that's involved in that process.  Um, 

          14  so each, um, evaluator that sits on that committee reviews 

          15  the proposals that we receive.  Um, there's, there's a 

          16  meeting that takes place.  Um, that group then has to come 

          17  to consensus to make a determination as to who the highest 

          18  ranked proposer, um, is.  Um, backing up just on the front 

          19  end, if, um, there are some particular requirements that we 

          20  would include in the request for proposal that, um, the 

          21  compliance with those requirements.  So if the SBE 

          22  participation were a requirement or if we had, let's just 

          23  say, you know, living wage requirements and their 

          24  particular forms that would be required for submission with 

          25  that, with the proposal, that would work is, um, conducted 

                                         Page 19 




           1  by the purchasing agent before those proposals are sent on 

           2  to the committee.  Um -  

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay, so 

           4  let's just back up a little. 

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay, so in 

           7  a bid process, is it fair to say that there are 

           8  specifications that are drafted and so long as the bidder 

           9  who submits a bit is responsible and responsive as deemed 

          10  by the - you, the purchasing director - 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - that the 

          13  lowest bid will get the contract? 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay. 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  And compliant, yeah. 

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yep. 

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Provided they -  

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  They - 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The lowest complying bidder -  

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Right. 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - is the terminology that we 

          23  use -  

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Right. 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - to order. 

                                         Page 20 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  What -  

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Whereas -  

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  What was that 

           4  terminology again? 

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The lowest complying bidder. 

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Thank you. 

           7            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Whereas in 

           8  an RFP process, you - the, the specifications might be 

           9  slightly less specific, um, you know, as opposed to a bid 

          10  where you would say, "We want XYZ."  In a proposal 

          11  situation, you might say, for instance, "We want an 

          12  attorney who has experience doing this sort of work and we, 

          13  you know, would want to see what your, um, some 

          14  references," -  

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right. 

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - "for 

          17  doing this sort of work." 

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And then a 

          20  team evaluates that - the proposals that are submitted 

          21  based on various criteria that are given a, um, percentage 

          22  weight. 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And then a, 

          25  um, best ranked proposer is selected and then negotiations 

                                         Page 21 




           1  would be entered into with that - 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  If necessary. 

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - proposal.   

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Right.   

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Can I interpose an 

           7  objection?  I -  

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, of 

           9  course. 

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I - 

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  What would, what would 

          12  the objection be? 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I will, ah, stipulate 

          14  that this isn't a bid process so I don't know why we're 

          15  talking about bids.  This is a RFP process. 

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  No, I'm 

          17  sorry.  I was just trying to get the background of how the 

          18  - they function.  And I'm, I'm - 

          19            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I - 

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - done 

          21  talking about bids. 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I, I'll over - overrule 

          23  your objection because I think she's just trying to explain 

          24  the, the, the universe of what goes on with the bidding and 

          25  I do realize it's an F - RFP. 

                                         Page 22 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Thank you, sir. 

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yep.  So 

           3  let's, let's turn to then -  

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - um, what 

           6  would happen with the Local Business Enterprise program?  

           7  And in the binder there's a copy of the, um, chapter 365, 

           8  which deals with the Local Enterprise program in case you 

           9  need to refer to it.   

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Can you 

          12  explain the Local Business Enterprise program and how that 

          13  works in an RFP situation? 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay.  So, again, a proposer 

          15  can receive 10 points for LBE participation, provided that 

          16  they meet certain criteria, which -  

          17            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair? 

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - and I need to -  

          19            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes, Mr. Hoeschen? 

          20            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ms. Kelsey, what does LBE 

          21  stand for? 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Oh, I'm sorry. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Laughter] 

          24  Sorry. 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Local Business Enterprise, 

                                         Page 23 




           1  um, program.  So for bids - and again, I - this helps me 

           2  explain it to you and I want to make sure that you have 

           3  clarity - those points are awarded - we consider it to be 

           4  bid incentive.  So it's different from SBE participation 

           5  whereby we may require, um, that a prime contractor sub 

           6  with a SBE firm.  So under the RFP process, again, they can 

           7  earn up to 10 points.  A proposer - and this is, um, this 

           8  is an advantage, if you will, that the prime contractor is 

           9  able to take advantage of, as opposed to an SBE firm, which 

          10  is at the sublevel, typically - um, so the firm is required 

          11  to submit an LBE affidavit verifying that, you know, they 

          12  have property, or lease property, in the city of Milwaukee, 

          13  that they've been in business for more than one year and 

          14  all of that, the, the criteria is specified in the 

          15  ordinance and in the form.  That form has to be signed and 

          16  notarized by the prime contractor.  Um, the - if a prime 

          17  contractor owns or leases additional property, the, um, the 

          18  property that is located or leased in the city of Milwaukee 

          19  must, in terms of space, um, be the largest piece of 

          20  property, if you will, or in terms of square footage or 

          21  acreage.   

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  So in this -  

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So if -  

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - particular contract, 

          25  this 10 points represents 10 points out of the total 100-

                                         Page 24 




           1  some they could get? 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So - right. 

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  If -  

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So there's a base of 100 and 

           5  then you can earn an additional 10 points for -  

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  So this would be then -  

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - LBE -  

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - 100-some -  

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - on top of it. 

          10            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  She called them bonus points. 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Bonus, bonus points. 

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  So this would be the - 

          13  this would be a bonus point.   

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

          15            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay. 

          16            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  So there's still a 100 point 

          17  maximum. 

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

          19            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  But someone could 

          20  conceivably, if they got all 100 points, have 110 -  

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - but it would be unlikely to 

          23  get more. 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's not likely. 

          25            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Okay.   

                                         Page 25 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  But, you know -  

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I just want to clarify -  

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - provided that they meet the 

           4  criteria set forth in the, in the ordinance.  Yeah.   

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  So the 

           6  Local Business Enterprise program, or LBE, that is a 

           7  program that's intended to benefit the prime contractor -  

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - or the 

          10  bidders or proposers on a contract, correct? 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay. 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          14            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  So now 

          15  we've kind of talked about that and it's really, it's, it's 

          16  intended to, um, or it's geared toward the location, 

          17  literally the location, of the bidder or proposers 

          18  business. 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Is that 

          21  fair to say? 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  So 

          24  then let's just talk about the Small Business Enterprise 

          25  program or SBE program. 

                                         Page 26 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay. 

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And I think 

           3  that's tabbed - it is tabbed - at number six in the set of 

           4  exhibits; it's chapter 370.  Okay.  Now that program, I 

           5  think it's fair to say, works differently than -  

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           7            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - the LBE 

           8  program. 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

          10            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Correct? 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  Now 

          13  can you just generally - without really dealing with this 

          14  contract - just generally talk about how that program 

          15  works? 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay.  So typically, so 

          17  here's the process.  A user department will submit a 

          18  requisition to purchasing, let's just say, for legal 

          19  services.  Um, that procurement request is then reviewed by 

          20  the Office of Small Business Development to make a 

          21  determination as to whether or not we should include what 

          22  we call an SBE requirement in the contract or in the bid.  

          23  So the Office of Small Business Development may inform 

          24  purchasing staff that, yes, there are two or more, you 

          25  know, there has to be more than one SBE firm certified in a 

                                         Page 27 




           1  particular category in order to include a participation, 

           2  SBE participation requirement in a, in a contract.  So they 

           3  may say, "Yes, we have five or more firms certified in this 

           4  area.  We would like for you to include, um, SBE 

           5  participation on this particular bid or contract."  Um, 

           6  city departments are required to meet certain goals 

           7  annually.  So for construction, um, that goal is 25 percent 

           8  for SBE participation.  For professional services, it's 18 

           9  percent.  So we have the flexibility to - we may, we may 

          10  place a 40 percent requirement in a bid or in a contract, 

          11  particularly with contracts that are led by my department 

          12  because there aren't a lot of SBE firms that are certified 

          13  to provide squad cars, water chemicals, you know, to ensure 

          14  that the water is, you know, um, safe to drink, um, things 

          15  like that.  Um, so, so we would and we would include that 

          16  in the bid.  Um, for an RFP, typically what we'll do, um, 

          17  is we'll say a proposer can earn a certain number of 

          18  points, bonus points, similar to SBE but it, um, the, the 

          19  process is - so the proposer or bidder has to submit Form A 

          20  in the bid.  Because we want to make sure that the process 

          21  is fair for everybody, they must identify the, the SBE 

          22  firm; they have to identify who the SBE firm is.  Um, 

          23  because, because again, we want to - we obviously want to 

          24  know if there is going to be a subcontracting relationship 

          25  with an SBE firm, we want to know who that firm is and we 

                                         Page 28 




           1  just - the Office of Small Business Development needs to 

           2  obviously track that information for purposes of, you know, 

           3  measuring the outcomes of, um, the work that they do.  Um, 

           4  so, um, proposers, bidders, are - and it's stipulated in 

           5  the bid or in the RFP - um, that they must submit this form 

           6  identifying who the SBE firm is, um, so that, um, the 

           7  committee or, you know, based on a bid scenario, um, that 

           8  the, that the purchasing agent can evaluate whether or not 

           9  the SBE firm is legitimate, whether or not the work that, 

          10  you know, whether or not they're certified, whether or not 

          11  they can actually perform the work, etcetera.  It's no 

          12  different than any other, you know, form that we would 

          13  require for different, other types of requirements like 

          14  living wage or, again, the LBE affidavit.  It's stipulated 

          15  that you must submit this form.  Otherwise, your proposal 

          16  may be - or your bid - may be rejected.  And we have to 

          17  have, you know, clear guidelines and procedures for 

          18  everyone so as to maintain the fairness and integrity of 

          19  the process.  We can't say to one bidder, "Oh, you can do 

          20  this," but another bidder, proposer can do that. I mean, 

          21  and that - from my perspective, from a procurement 

          22  perspective, then you start to sort of tamper our - with 

          23  the integrity of fairness of the process.  So does that - 

          24  was that -  

          25            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, now you mention 

                                         Page 29 




           1  this was bonus points?  Or is it part of the 100 points? 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So for an RFP, it could be - 

           3  it is bonus points, not a requirement, but it could be. 

           4            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  No, in this particular -  

           5            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  In, in this -  

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - in this particular -  

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - specific, in this specific 

           8  -  

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  And going back to this 

          10  solicitation? 

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  In this particular case. 

          12            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It was points.  It was 

          13  points. 

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  So it was not bonus 

          15  points; it was points. 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Bonus points, I'm sorry.  

          17  Bonus points. 

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Oh, bonus points.  And 

          19  how many, how many bonus points? 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Ten. 

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay.   

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ten for LBE and 10 for -  

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  And for -  

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - SBE. 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - SBE. 

                                         Page 30 




           1            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Alright. 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So then the next amount -  

           3            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  A total of 20 additional 

           4  points.   

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - could be 120, yes. 

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And, and -  

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           8            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  And, and Mr. Chairman, I 

           9  have a question. 

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes, Mr. Fritsche? 

          11            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Depending on the contract, 

          12  ah, the RFP, do those numbers change?  Could a contract 

          13  have like 25 points for, for an SBE component?  You said 

          14  there were 10 for each in this particular one.  Does that 

          15  mean that number can change depending on the RFP? 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Typically, it's ten.  No, we 

          17  wouldn't, we wouldn’t, you know, inform proposers that they 

          18  can earn up to 25 points for SBE because, again, the max is 

          19  one hundred.  I mean, there's just a limit that - no, it 

          20  wouldn't change, to answer your question.   

          21            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  And -  

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I don't want to complicate 

          23  it. 

          24            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  - a second question is, um, 

          25  if a bidder, um, has, is presenting a SBE component, ah, 

                                         Page 31 




           1  subcontractor, you just contact the SBE office to verify 

           2  that they're certified? 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           4            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Okay.   

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And you may -  

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  And, typically - yeah. 

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You may continue, 

           8  Attorney Block. 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay, so 

          10  just to summarize this, there - the departments have annual 

          11  overall goals -  

          12            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right. 

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - 

          14  participation goals. 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Depending 

          17  on the category of contract. 

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right. 

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And there 

          20  are three different con - categories -  

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          22            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - correct? 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And they 

          25  may meet those goals after consultation with the Office of 

                                         Page 32 




           1  Small Business Development.  Um, depending on how many 

           2  certified, um, small business, um, certified small 

           3  businesses there are in the, um, type of contract that 

           4  they're letting -  

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - um, by 

           7  arriving at contract requirements for certain contracts or 

           8  not; they might not set - they might set a zero percentage. 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right, they may say, "No, we 

          10  don't have any firms certified in this area."  Therefore, 

          11  we wouldn't, -  

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  There's -  

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - include points or we 

          14  wouldn't include a requirement for SBE participation. 

          15            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  But in this contract 

          16  there were. 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well -  

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Points that, that a proposer 

          20  could earn. 

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes. 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And I, I 

          24  plan - 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Bonus points. 

                                         Page 33 




           1            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - to talk 

           2  about this contract more specifically but since we're kind 

           3  of on the topic, let's talk about this contract more 

           4  specifically.  Um, in this case, we're in consultation with 

           5  the Office of Small Business Development.  Um, there was 

           6  not a requirement set, is that correct? 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'm, I'm going to object.  

           8  I don't know if, if she's laid a foundation that purchasing 

           9  actually talked -  

          10            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Ah, I, fair 

          11  enough.  Um -  

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, I'll sustain that 

          13  then.  You may - you may put together a live framework and 

          14  for us to -  

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I don't think there's 

          17  testimony that Ms. Kelsey's office even contacted the Small 

          18  Business -  

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, I can 

          20  certainly ask that question [laughter]. 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  And I, so -  

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, hold on, Ms. 

          23  Kelsey.  We - you have to wait until a question is put 

          24  forth to you. 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Oh, I'm sorry.   

                                         Page 34 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yeah, Attorney Block 

           2  will decide what she's going to ask you and - 

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Laughter] 

           4  With -  

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - Mr. Harlan will -  

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  With regard 

           7  to this specific contract at issue, um, did you contact, 

           8  um, or did someone in your office contact the Office of 

           9  Small Business Development? 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  With the award of the 

          11  contract? 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  No, not - 

          13  but prior to the award, when you were putting together the 

          14  RFP, are you aware, ah, whether or not the Office of Small 

          15  Business Development was contacted - 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The Office -  

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - with 

          18  regard to this contract? 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The Office of Small Business 

          20  Development has to sign off on the request for exception to 

          21  bid, OSBD Analysis Participation form.  So that is where 

          22  they conduct their initial review as to whether or not 

          23  points or a requirement would be included in a particular, 

          24  um, procurement.   

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And with 

                                         Page 35 




           1  regard to this contract, what was the result of that, um, 

           2  sign off? 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  That we would include points, 

           4  the 10 points, the 10 bonus points. 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  And 

           6  - 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Can I just -  

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - what 

           9  would -  

          10            ATTORNEY HARLAN EMERY:  Can, can I raise an 

          11  objection, ah -  

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  What's the objection? 

          13            ATTORNEY HARLAN EMERY:  So, we have exchanged 

          14  discovery in this matter in, in the sense that we have made 

          15  an open records request and we subpoenaed documents and 

          16  Block has provided us with a fair amount of material 

          17  related to this procurement.  The document that the witness 

          18  testified about, um, was not one of them.  Ah, that - we 

          19  never got anything from the Small Business Department 

          20  indicating that they had signed off and decided that points 

          21  would be appropriate for this procurement and, ah, so we 

          22  don't have that material.   

          23            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Any response to that, 

          24  Attorney Block? 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, ah, 

                                         Page 36 




           1  all I can say is I was not involved in the public records 

           2  request that preceded it.  My understanding of the subpoena 

           3  was you asked for questions related to the evaluation of 

           4  the RFP.  That's not a document related to the evaluation 

           5  of the RFP; that's something that would have happened 

           6  before the RFP was even put together. 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  We, we asked for all 

           9  records relating to the RFP itself. 

          10            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  No, that's 

          11  not accurate. 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well -  

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'll, I'll withdraw the 

          15  objection and go ahead and -  

          16            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, you may continue.  

          17  He's withdraw - he's withdrawing his objection. 

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, so with 

          19  regard to the - and now I lost my train of thought - ah, 

          20  um, oh, okay.  So with regard to the, um - you received a, 

          21  or, you received a, um, sign off back from Nikki - or, 

          22  excuse me, from the Office of Small Business Development 

          23  and I assume that was Nikki Purvis, correct?   

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay, who's 

                                         Page 37 




           1  the head of -  

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Or a staffer. 

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - yeah. 

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  The Office 

           6  of Small - 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The office. 

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - Business 

           9  Development. 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, that 

          12  suggested you include a 10 point bonus on this contract? 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          14            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And what 

          15  would the reason for that be?  Are you aware? 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  What would be the reason why 

          17  a -  

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  For -  

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - determination was made 

          20  relative to including bonus points -  

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes. 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - as opposed to requirement? 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes. 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Because with an RFP, um, and 

          25  the nature of this particular RFP, this service, it just 

                                         Page 38 




           1  makes more sense to allow for - it, it's different from - 

           2  I'm trying to give an example of, um, a situation where it 

           3  would be - just because the nature of an RFP, quite 

           4  honestly, we just allow for points as opposed to a 

           5  requirement.  It gives proposers more flexibility to, to 

           6  basically earn those points. 

           7            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay, so 

           8  it's -  

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  That's the best way to put 

          10  it.  Because we don't want to hard fast dictate something 

          11  that might not be achievable or doable and that's why we 

          12  structure, um, that's why we include, um, bonus points as 

          13  opposed to saying this is a hard fast requirement because 

          14  we may be in a situation where we don't get responses if 

          15  we're requiring something that may not be achievable.  So 

          16  we structure it such that proposers are allowed to earn 

          17  these points and they can earn the maximum but it's not a 

          18  requirement, if that makes sense.  Does that make sense? 

          19            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  But in this particular 

          20  contract, there was a potential to earn 20 bonus points or 

          21  just ten? 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Well, with the com - with the 

          23  LBE and SBE combined, it would be twenty. 

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And that was with this 

          25  particular contract. 

                                         Page 39 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes, with this proposal.  

           2  Yes.  Yes, with this contract. 

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And let me 

           4  just ask a follow-up to that, um, question.  If - okay, so 

           5  the, the 10 bonus points would have been allowed for, um, 

           6  an SBE, correct?  Utilization of an SBE? 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Where would 

           9  the other 10 points have been, um, earnable from? 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  LBE. 

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, would 

          12  that have been earnable by every LBE? 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes, provided that they 

          14  qualify and meet the criteria.   

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay. 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay, thank 

          18  you.  Um, okay, so now, I kind of want to now go back to 

          19  the specifics of this contract and obviously, we've covered 

          20  a lot of this so I, you know, I guess some of this is going 

          21  to be duplicative but I want to try and go in a - in a 

          22  coherent order.  Um, you - in developing the RFP document 

          23  itself -  

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - um, what 

                                         Page 40 




           1  would that all include?  Um, you know, what, what goes into 

           2  the RFP or the Request for Proposal, I'm sorry.  The 

           3  Request for Proposal itself? 

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm.   

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah, Mr. Chair, just for 

           6  clarification, I don't know if the question is a general 

           7  one in terms of what the standard operating procedure is? 

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, sorry.  

           9  Apologize. 

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Or this particular 

          11  procurement. 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I - 

          13  apologies. 

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Oh, I have to admit, I 

          15  prefer this particular -  

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And I think 

          17  that's -  

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - this particular 

          19  proposal.  

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - and 

          21  that's really what I do mean and I think, quite honestly, 

          22  I, I - if, if I may rephrase the question.  Um, I - is it 

          23  fair to say that this procurement - in, in developing this 

          24  Request for Proposal, would you say that it followed your 

          25  standard procedure for developing a, a Request for 

                                         Page 41 




           1  Proposal? 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  So 

           4  then let's discuss this Request for Proposal -  

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - 

           7  particularly.  Um, in putting together this Request for 

           8  Proposal, um, is it fair to say it included - yeah, 

           9  specifications -  

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  All the work. 

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - as to the 

          12  sort of work and, um, as we previously discussed also, um, 

          13  criteria for evaluating that were awarded, you know, that 

          14  percentages to what, you know -  

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Weights.  Yes.   

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - weights 

          17  as to how you would have the, the, um, ah, the review panel 

          18  would evaluate the proposal itself, correct? 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  And 

          21  as we've prior discussed, there was, ah, bonus points for 

          22  the Local Business Enterprise and that was included, ah, 

          23  correct, because that was required by ordinance? 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes.  And 

                                         Page 42 




           1  we've already discussed why there was a Small Business 

           2  Enterprise requirement. 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Bonus points, yes. 

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Bonus 

           5  points, I'm sorry.  Ah, you mentioned the Form A earlier 

           6  with regard to the Small Business Enterprise, um, bonus 

           7  points.  Was there - and I guess, let's, um, maybe turn 

           8  specifically to the proposal itself and there are, let's 

           9  see, in - I'm turning explicitly to - if you need to 

          10  refresh your recollection, there are pages in exhibit 10, 

          11  which is part of the Request for Proposal itself.  On page 

          12  two of that exhibit, um, which you have a copy of the 

          13  binder in front of you; I've got notes on mine.  Um, 

          14  exhibit 10 -  

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Exhibit ten. 

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - is a, um 

          17  -  

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Sorry. 

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - portions 

          20  of the Request for Proposal. 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Page two? 

          22            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Page two. 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay.   

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, there 

          25  is a portion there, um, that speaks to the bonus for SBE 

                                         Page 43 




           1  participation, is there not? 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes, there is. 

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, so you 

           4  may use that, perhaps, to refresh your recollection.  Does 

           5  it discuss the Form A? 

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           7            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  What does 

           8  it say about the Form A? 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  You, you want me to read this 

          10  entire - basically, what it says is the Office of Small 

          11  Business Development Contractor Compliance Plan, Form A, 

          12  must be submitted - must be completed and submitted with 

          13  your proposal if you intend to utilize an SBE 

          14  subcontractor.  Failure to return these properly completed 

          15  forms will result in disqual - disqualification from 

          16  receiving additional points or SBE participation -  

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay. 

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - for SBE participation. 

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And, and 

          20  how does your, um, department interpret that language? 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It is interpreted such that 

          22  if you don't submit the form, then you're not eligible to, 

          23  to earn the points. 

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  Now 

          25  the SBE program, it - let's assume, for the sake of 

                                         Page 44 




           1  argument, um, in this case -  

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I'm just going to take 

           3  one short note.  We were just handed the Request for 

           4  Proposal by opposing counsel. 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay 

           6  [laughter]. 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I -  

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Um -  

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I have copies so I know 

          10  we sent it electronically but if -  

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Right. 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  As we introduce these 

          13  exhibits, I'll give you copies I have.   

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Ah -  

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I might as well -  

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, I 

          17  assumed you had them in the e-book, sorry. 

          18            MS. LINDA ELMER:  We do. 

          19            MR. AVERILL:  They are. 

          20            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  We may, but it's -   

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, okay. 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - it's hard to shuffle 

          23  back and forth -  

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Fair 

          25  enough. 

                                         Page 45 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - in the e-book. 

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Fair 

           3  enough.  Um, on page - so I'm on page two of the RFP, ah, 

           4  at the bottom of the page there where it talks about the 

           5  SBE participation.  Um, so let's go back to the SBE 

           6  ordinance generally.  If - MWH is a certified SBE firm, is 

           7  it not? 

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes, it is. 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes.  Let's 

          10  assume for the sake of argument, MWH had without Quarles & 

          11  Brady, um, pro - filed a proposal in response to this 

          12  procurement and filed a Form A properly. 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          14            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Would they 

          15  have gotten the bonus points?   

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  If in this 

          18  proposal had there been a Form A properly filed and 

          19  completed, would MWH and Quarles have gotten the bonus 

          20  points for SBE participation? 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          22            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Did - the 

          23  gist of my question is in a, in a typical proposal for - 

          24  let's strike that.  The - is it necessary in every case 

          25  that an SBE firm be a subcontractor in order to receive -  

                                         Page 46 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.  Yes, unless we're 

           2  calling for something different.  The RFP is clear about 

           3  the arrangement should - and this is where the Request for 

           4  Proposal process is a lot different from the bidding 

           5  process. If some sort of different arrangement - I mean, 

           6  that's what it is, typically.  Yes, you - the SBE is 

           7  functioning as a sub to the prime, um, and therefore, 

           8  providing a particular service as a sub under the contract.  

           9  Um, if -  

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Was Form A submitted? 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No.   

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  So the 10 bonus points 

          13  was not awarded. 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

          15            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Thank you.   

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So, I guess I just want to - 

          17  even if the form were submitted, potentially - and I don't 

          18  know; I mean, I can't - this - you know, I'm going way back 

          19  to the fall of 2017 - but it wasn't, it wasn't submitted in 

          20  the, in the proposal; the RFP was clear about that.  And 

          21  the purchasing agent made a determination that they weren't 

          22  eligible for the points for that reason; just from a clear 

          23  black and white perspective.  And we have instructions for 

          24  proposers to follow.  We can't change the rules as we go 

          25  along and because, again, it goes back to what one of my 

                                         Page 47 




           1  major priorities is, is making sure that the process is 

           2  fair and ethical.  There's a Q and A period for all 

           3  proposers to ask questions about what is required, any 

           4  additional clarity.  Um, they can also take exceptions to 

           5  what has been specified in the proposal.  So a proposer 

           6  could say, "Hey, I don't agree with what, you know, you're 

           7  asking for.  This would be a better option."  Or, "We're 

           8  doing something different.  Will the city consider, 

           9  consider this?"  It could be considered.  That is the 

          10  opportunity for a firm to ask questions, receive clarity, 

          11  and make the city aware of the fact that they may be going 

          12  in a different direction, other than what is being 

          13  specified or called for in RFP.  Because we could then 

          14  decide to make a change that all proposers would be aware 

          15  of.  Because if we don't do that, then again, going back to 

          16  what I just said, then we're, we're changing processes and 

          17  procedures for individual proposers and that's not 

          18  transparent; that's -   

          19            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  But it wasn't changed -  

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - not transparent. 

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - in this particular 

          22  case. 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Because that didn't happen.  

          24  Because -  

          25            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Oh, well the question is 

                                         Page 48 




           1  was it changed or wasn't it changed? 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It wasn't.   

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Thank you. 

           4            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Mr. Chair, I have a 

           5  question. 

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Fritsche? 

           7            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Um, so you're not hand 

           8  holders.  If someone submits, ah, a RFP proposal and 

           9  they're identifying a - as an example - an SBE, ah, 

          10  subcontractor but they haven't submitted Form A, you don't 

          11  call them and say, "Hey, I see you've identified the 

          12  subcontractor.  We don't have Form A." 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No. 

          14            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Okay.   

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  We don't do that.   

          16            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You may continue, Ms. 

          17  Block. 

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, in fact 

          19  if we turn to page three of the, um, disclosure counsel 

          20  RFP, it states that, um, proposers can ask questions, 

          21  correct?  And there's a process for that? 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, in this 

          24  case, are you aware - did any proposers, um, potential 

          25  proposers, ask questions? 

                                         Page 49 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yeah, they - there were quite 

           2  a few, ah, questions that were, um, presented.  And what we 

           3  do is we respond to those questions and the responses are 

           4  posted via an addendum; an addendum to the RFP itself and 

           5  that all proposers are required to sign that addendum, send 

           6  it back with their proposal, to ensure that they all 

           7  understand what is being asked, if there are, you know, we 

           8  may change the date, the closing date for an RFP.  That's 

           9  the vehicle or mechanism that we use to keep all proposers 

          10  - again, in a very transparent fashion - aware of what 

          11  we're doing throughout the process.  So a proposer could 

          12  have submitted a question again, like I said, "Hey, we 

          13  don't like this in the proposal; we don't think this is 

          14  fair."  The city could entertain that and then say we are 

          15  amending this RFP to change this particular requirement.  

          16  Then all proposers are informed and aware of that change.  

          17  That is the process; that is the vehicle for a proposer to 

          18  question or request any changes to the RFP or obtain 

          19  clarity. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I -  

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  But in this particular 

          22  case, you did not eliminate the Form A requirement. 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  We weren't asked to. 

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  No, the question is -  

          25            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Right, that's -  

                                         Page 50 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - the [inaudible]. 

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I think we're - right, I 

           3  think we're getting sort of sidetracked on this question 

           4  issue.  The, the real issue here is in order to get the SBE 

           5  points, you had to submit Form A. 

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And the proposer, or the 

           8  appellant in this case, did not submit Form A. 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

          10            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Okay.   

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, is, is 

          12  there, um, any portion of the SBE ordinance that talks 

          13  about joint ventures?  And if I may, I'll refer - 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I think -  

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - you to -  

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I think there is, um, but - 

          17  or used to be years ago. 

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Laughter] 

          19  There -  

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Um -  

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  There is. 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay, I thought so.   

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Laughter] 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right?   

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, I'm 

                                         Page 51 




           1  going to -  

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - refer you 

           4  to the chapter of -  

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Section 12, here, yes.   

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes. 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  There is reference to it.   

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  It defines 

           9  joint venture, you're correct. 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It defines it; correct.   

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And that 

          12  definition then becomes relevant, um, if we look at chapter 

          13  370 and - 

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I'm sorry -  

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - 370-5(3). 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Dash five, sub three, okay.  

          17  Yes, it's in two sections, actually; I was looking at 

          18  another section.   

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And if you 

          20  want to read that to refresh your recollection. 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Sure.  Sure.  Participation 

          22  of Small Business Enterprises and joint ventures with other 

          23  such businesses and mainstream business entities is 

          24  encouraged.  In the case of a certified joint venture, only 

          25  that portion of the total dollar value of the contract 

                                         Page 52 




           1  equal to the percentage of participation of the Small 

           2  Business Enterprise partner venture and the joint venture 

           3  shall be counted toward the applicable requirement. 

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And then it 

           5  - there is an exhibit here, which is number five and, I'm 

           6  sorry, I keep flipping all the, ah, exhibits.  Um, which is 

           7  a copy of the Form A -  

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.  

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - that you 

          10  would have included in the, ah, RFP?  Is that the - is it 

          11  the form that was included in this, ah, RFP? 

          12            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, so this 

          14  is a copy that the winning proposer, I guess, or -  

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It is. 

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - best 

          17  ranked proposer -  

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes, the highest.  Yes. 

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - used? 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  Um -  

          22            UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER:  Thanks. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - does that 

          24  indicate what percentage, um, of payments were going to 

          25  the, ah, in this case the subcontractor? 

                                         Page 53 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes, 20 percent. 

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Do you have four?  Okay.   

           3            MS. LINDA ELMER:  I -  

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Thank you. 

           5            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Thank you.   

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay, and 

           7  then I - we have - can you explain what Bonfire is to me?   

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So Bonfire is the software 

           9  platform that we use to, um, allow, ah, proposers to upload 

          10  proposals, um, that are being requested by the, um, city.  

          11  Um, the software platform is also used by, um, the 

          12  purchasing agent to review the proposals for compliance, as 

          13  well as the, um, the evaluation committee members to score 

          14  the proposals, um, to include notes.  Um, we're also able 

          15  to generate some analytics from that software regarding, 

          16  you know, all of the proposals that have been submitted, 

          17  you know, dollar amount, number, etcetera, by type.  So 

          18  that's the electronic or digital system that we use to, um, 

          19  evaluate proposals to - and allow for, um, potential 

          20  proposers to submit, um, proposals.  Years ago, um, they, 

          21  you know, brought in, um, hard copies.  We still do receive 

          22  a couple of hard copies but years ago, we used to receive 

          23  like requests like eight or nine, so it's a more 

          24  streamlined process that we use.   

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  And 

                                         Page 54 




           1  then there was a copy, um, of exhibit three here, which is, 

           2  I guess, that's what would be sort of like the Bonfire 

           3  summary of the, the evaluator's notes and comments -  

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - for this 

           6  RFP.  Is that correct? 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, does it 

           9  indicate to you anything about the Small Business 

          10  Enterprise points, um, bonus points, um, that - for, um, 

          11  Quarles & Brady, ah, Quarles & Brady's proposal, um, 

          12  specifically? 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          14            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Can you 

          15  tell me what that is? 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It says, um, ah, on the first 

          17  page, ah, after the cover page, "SBE corrections Quarles & 

          18  Brady, minus 9.6 SBE points, OSBD plan not submitted for 

          19  evaluator review as required." 

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, is 

          21  there any other note after -  

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Um -  

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - that one? 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - let's see. Duane Morris, 

          25  loss of 3.2 SBE points, no - so, so again, this was a 

                                         Page 55 




           1  standard across the board; we didn't treat, you know, one 

           2  proposer different than another.  Another proposer didn't 

           3  earn the points because they also didn't submit Form A.  

           4  Um, what else here?  I don't see anything else about SBE 

           5  participation.  Ah, let's see - so yeah, "Deduct 9.6 points 

           6  for Quarles & Brady, bonus SBE points zero.  Deduct 3.2 

           7  points for Duane Morris, bonus SBE points to zero." 

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay, so 

           9  Duane Morris was another proposer -  

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - that 

          12  failed to submit a Form A. 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

          14            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  But, 

          15  but at some point, there were points that were indicated 

          16  here.  Can you explain why that would be? 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So I think the committee was, 

          18  um, the committee scored the proposals and gave those firms 

          19  the points.  The purchasing agent then, um -  

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I - can I just object to 

          21  this?  Unless there's a foundation that she was actually a 

          22  part of that process?  I mean, she's just speculating in 

          23  terms of what a committee did.  If she was there 

          24  participating in the process and has firsthand knowledge 

          25  that's relevant, but if she wasn't there, her opinion of 

                                         Page 56 




           1  what happens is no better than anybody else's. 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Those are - those are the 

           3  facts. 

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I, I mean, 

           5  I think she -  

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's right here; I'm looking 

           7  at it. 

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I think she 

           9  can interpret what happens - 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yeah. 

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK: - regarding 

          12  her own software depending on what's - and if, ah, Mr. 

          13  Harlan wants to offer -  

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I -  

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - other 

          16  testimony, he can ask these people. 

          17            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I guess I'll sustain the 

          18  objection in that, that I think she can testify to what the 

          19  conclusions were for one firm scored this, um, 14749 scored 

          20  that.  But she can't testify to how they came to that. 

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well no, 

          22  I'm not - I'm not saying she can say why. 

          23            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  She's just explaining 

          24  why they got points in these certain areas, but that's 

          25  about it; that's on the form. 

                                         Page 57 




           1            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, I - 

           2  okay, that's fine.   

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I mean, fair enough?    

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah, actually -  

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  She'll be able to say 

           6  what's on the form when one got this many points but the 

           7  other person got - the firm got this many points - but 

           8  that's about the end of it. 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, I 

          10  think she can indicate why the, there are changes that were 

          11  made.  Um, I mean, they're - I, I mean, if -  

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well -  

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - if it 

          14  says, "Plan not submitted," I mean, I think she can 

          15  understand why her software that she, you know, administers 

          16  has notations that are made, um -  

          17            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I think - I just think 

          18  she'd go to - I've got zero points in that area and that's 

          19  it. 

          20            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  It, I - I think the testimony 

          21  came in, Ms. Block. 

          22            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  Fair 

          23  enough.  Okay, so let's move on and discuss LBE, ah, 

          24  programs, specifically, as it related to this contract. Um 

          25  -  

                                         Page 58 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Let me go back. 

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - did MWH 

           3  submit an LBE affidavit, um, in connection with this, ah, 

           4  with the proposal that was filed here? 

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  And 

           7  that's attached as, um, oh, let's see, I think that's 

           8  exhibit fourteen? 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Fourteen, yes.   

          10            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  Oh, 

          11  except that's only -  

          12            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I - oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair? 

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh -  

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes, Mr. Hoeschen? 

          15            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ms. Block, before you move on 

          16  -  

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Of course. 

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - ah, Ms. Kelsey, the, the 

          19  notation, the correction says, "Quarles & Brady, minus 9.6 

          20  SBE points."  Why would 9.6 have been awarded? 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The number? 

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Yes. 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The, the points are - each 

          24  evaluator on the committee, um, assigns points in that 

          25  particular category and that, that is a total number of 

                                         Page 59 




           1  points that, that the committee members determined that 

           2  Quarles and - that, that should be received for SBE 

           3  participation.  So it could be - it could be 10, it could 

           4  be, it could be five.  It could be four.  It could be zero. 

           5  A firm may even submit the Form A and the committee may 

           6  evaluate what has been submitted and determine that no 

           7  points should be earned. 

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  So there are five members of 

           9  the committee and they each get two points to award and 

          10  somebody awarded .6 at some point?  Okay.  

          11            UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER:  Did you hear that? 

          12            UNKNOWN FEMALE SPEAKER:  Yeah. 

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, and I 

          14  guess -  

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  [Inaudible] write down -  

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I'll just -  

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - the individual -  

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I'll just 

          19  ask you here and this maybe will draw out, um, the 

          20  committee's attention. Um, if we're looking at Duane 

          21  Morris', um, which is the other firm that, ah, apparently 

          22  did not submit a Form A - we're looking at page three of 

          23  four of their, ah, little summary score.   

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I can't find it. 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, about 

                                         Page 60 




           1  halfway down the page it says, "SBE participation bonus 

           2  points." 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Duane Morris, okay.   

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Ah, if you 

           5  could note what's, ah, um, if you can, ah, let me know 

           6  what's noted there by committee member for points awarded 

           7  there -  

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Um - 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - if you 

          10  get there. 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  What, what page? 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Page three 

          13  of four.   

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Page three of four. 

          15            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Duane Morris is part of the 

          16  back -  

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes, Duane 

          18  Morris. 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yep. 

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, we've 

          21  got Richard Lee, David Anderson, Jerry Allen, and Jeremy 

          22  McKenzie -  

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - and 

          25  Dennis Yaccarino. 

                                         Page 61 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right.   

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, they 

           3  awarded differing amounts of points for SBE participation, 

           4  correct?  

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yeah. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Out of a 

           7  total of ten? 

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, some 

          10  were awarded zero, some were awarded five, and some were 

          11  awarded six, correct? 

          12            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  So, um, 

          14  they just awarded differing amounts of points, correct? 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  They're allowed to do. 

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Right.  

          17  Okay.  So, I'm -  

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I see it.  And if you look on 

          19  Quarles & Brady's on page three of three -  

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Right. 

          21            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - the same thing happened 

          22  there. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Right. 

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Four of the five evaluators 

          25  awarded 10 out of 10 and one evaluator, for some reason -  

                                         Page 62 




           1            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Laughter] 

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - only awarded eight out of 

           3  ten.  Alright, thank you. 

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK: And I've got 

           5  - this is, um - I'm just going to use this for like one 

           6  thing.   

           7            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Thank you.   

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  This is a 

           9  full copy of the - of Quarles & Brady's, um, response to 

          10  the RFP; so this is their complete proposal.  And on page - 

          11  huh, it ends up being, I guess, page -  

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And I'd find this - 

          13  excuse me. 

          14            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, I'm 

          15  sorry. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Is it - does it - is this 

          17  going to be sixteen?  Or -  

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah, I 

          19  guess I would make it sixteen?  Although, I, I should note 

          20  that I noticed when I was coming down here, their taxpayer 

          21  employer number - the taxpayer, um, identification number 

          22  is on this so we need to redact this before we admit it -  

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  No objection to that. 

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And if I - if this is 

          25  going to be exhibit sixteen? 

                                         Page 63 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And just for the record, 

           2  did we admit all the other things in the binder?  All the 

           3  exhibits that were -  

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  They're in 

           5  the e-book?  I mean, I'm certainly - no objections. 

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, why don't we just 

           7  go through that real quick. 

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yep. 

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I know we have exhibit 

          10  three, five, 10, um, did I miss any?  Three, five, 10 and 

          11  then there was - 

          12            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  This is sixteen. 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - sixteen.  But was 

          14  there other than three, five, 10 or sixteen? 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Why - I think that the - 

          16  what was contemplated was everything that we sent was by 

          17  mutual agreement to be part of the record.   

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK: I have no 

          19  objection -  

          20            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay. 

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - to that. 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  So noted.   

          23            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Is that okay with you?  Okay.  

          24  Our counsel said -  

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Inaudible] 

                                         Page 64 




           1  ordinances don't need to get moved but -  

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  That's fine.  Policy -  

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - but, but 

           4  I'm - again, no objection.   

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay.   

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  Um, 

           7  so tab B, page 11, um, you get a copy [laughter].  Tab B, 

           8  page 11, um, binding signatures for RFP and contract.  Um, 

           9  Ms. Kelsey, can you please indicate who is listed as the 

          10  proposer's firm? 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Quarles & Brady. 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, is MWH 

          13  listed on that page in any way? 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Not that I can see, no. 

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And we 

          16  discussed earlier that the LBE, um, program, the Local 

          17  Business Enterprise program, is a, ah, a program that's 

          18  intended to benefit the prime contractor or the proposer.  

          19  Is that correct? 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay, so 

          22  now turning to specifically to - now we don't need to use 

          23  this exhibit -  

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay. 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - cause 

                                         Page 65 




           1  it's really only need for - um, we can now look 

           2  specifically to, um, exhibit 14, which is the Local 

           3  Business Enterprise Program Affidavit of Compliance 

           4  submitted by MWH.  On page - I guess this would be really 

           5  page three of the form, which is sort of an additional for 

           6  you need to submit if you've got more than one property 

           7  location - is that correct? 

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, can you 

          10  tell me how many properties are listed there? 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Four. 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  And 

          13  so one of those is in Milwaukee, correct? 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And the 

          16  others are not, correct? 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And they're 

          19  not in - well, it doesn’t matter; they're not in Milwaukee, 

          20  or they're not in Wisconsin - but they're not - um, can you 

          21  tell me, um, why the, ah, why the, um, proposal of Quarles 

          22  & Brady was not awarded LBE points? 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  A determination was made 

          24  that, um, because additional properties were listed -  

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Hmm-hmm. 

                                         Page 66 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - in this form, um, that, you 

           2  know, the combined square footage or, um, the office space, 

           3  if you will, in these other locations, um, didn't meet the 

           4  criteria set forth in the affidavit whereby we say that the 

           5  majority, um, of the, you know, owned or leased space by 

           6  the prime, um, has to represent, um, the majority of the 

           7  proposer's office space.  So a determination was made that 

           8  they were not - that they didn't meet the criteria and 

           9  that's why they didn't earn, um, the 10 points for SBE 

          10  participation.   

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So it wasn't because there 

          12  was only one property in Milwaukee and three properties 

          13  that were outside Milwaukee.  You just didn't go one verses 

          14  three, did you? 

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Drilling 

          16  down at that level of detail, one verses three?  

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I mean, you didn't just count 

          18  the number of properties.  Or did you? 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I think a determination was 

          20  made, they're three -  

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'm going to object 

          22  because it -  

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  There are three that -  

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Hold on one second, Ms. 

          25  Kelsey; there's an objection. 

                                         Page 67 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I guess the objection is 

           2  the witness doesn't have personal knowledge, which is 

           3  pretty apparent.  She's saying, "I'm going to guess that's 

           4  why the decision was made."  So as to the extent she's 

           5  testifying about why the decision was made without any 

           6  foundation that she was involved in that decision -  

           7            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Fair 

           8  enough. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - or made the decision, I 

          10  -  

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I'll sustain it. 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - would strike -  

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Fair 

          14  enough. 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.   

          16            MR. AVERILL:  Mr. Chair? 

          17            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair?   

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Ah, Mr. Hoeschen? Well -  

          19            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Actually, Mr. Averill was 

          20  first. 

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Averill? 

          22            MR. AVERILL:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  I have a 

          23  question for Ms. Kelsey. 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes? 

          25            MR. AVERILL:  Ms. Kelsey, can you tell me the 

                                         Page 68 




           1  square footage of properties one, two, three, and four? 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.  Um, I was told by Mr. 

           3  Harlan, um, 3,000 square feet for the Milwaukee office.  

           4  For the office in Iowa, I was told 2,444 square feet.  And 

           5  for the Chicago location, I was informed that there was no 

           6  office; um, they just use that location for, um, conference 

           7  space. Um, and then for Indiana, the Indiana office, I was 

           8  informed that, um, it was a business that is being operated 

           9  in a house and this was all after the - this is - I was 

          10  informed of this October 9th, 2017. 

          11            MR. AVERILL:  Mr. Chair, as a follow-up? 

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes, Mr. Averill. 

          13            MR. AVERILL:  So the property that was operated 

          14  in a house, presumably the house does have some square 

          15  footage but you don't know the size of the house?  Or how 

          16  much of that house was being operated as an office? 

          17             MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I was not provided with that 

          18  information. 

          19            MR. AVERILL:  Thank you. 

          20            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair? 

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Hoeschen? 

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ms. Kelsey, even if a 

          23  determination had been made that LBE participation was 

          24  appropriate for Quarles & Brady, would the award have 

          25  automatically been 10 points?  Or would the reviewers have 

                                         Page 69 




           1  had the ability, like they did with the SBE, for some 

           2  reason to award something less than ten? 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  They would - it would have 

           4  been, it would have been automatic for the most part. 

           5            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  It's an automatic 10 points.  

           6  So it's not like the SBE where, where they were initially 

           7  awarded 9.6 because someone thought for whatever reason 

           8  they only deserved eight out of ten. 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

          10            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Okay.  So it's 10 or nothing 

          11  on the LB. 

          12            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's 10 or nothing. 

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  So 

          14  did - and I'll ask the question that we kind of got to 

          15  before - um, did you, ah, make the determination as to 

          16  whether or not, excuse me, the Local Business Enterprise, 

          17  um, affidavit, ah, demonstrated - or did you make the 

          18  initial determination, let's say, as to whether or not the 

          19  Local Enterprise - the Local Business Enterprise program 

          20  criteria were met, um, when the Request for Proposal was 

          21  evaluated? 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I did not. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Did you at 

          24  some point, um, evaluate or consider whether or not that 

          25  was a proper determination? 

                                         Page 70 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  At, at the point that, um, 

           2  the open records request was received, I did look into it 

           3  further -  

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay. 

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - as MWH is aware of. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  

           7  Thank you.  And so, was that prior to the award of the 

           8  contract? 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY: No. 

          10            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay, thank 

          11  you. 

          12            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair? 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Hoeschen? 

          14            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ah, Ms. Kelsey, when someone 

          15  receives their SBE designation, they get a document and 

          16  they are declared an SBE, correct? 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  How does - does someone 

          19  receive an LBE designation that they carry around with 

          20  them? 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No. 

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  So it's made on a case by 

          23  case basis each time you receive an RFP. 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY?  Yes.   

          25            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  So it's possible that the 

                                         Page 71 




           1  next time you looked at Quarles & Brady's RFP, you could 

           2  determine they were an LBE. 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

           4            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Alright.  Thank you.   

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You may continue, 

           6  Attorney Block. 

           7            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Just give 

           8  me a second.  I think I don't have anything further.   

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, I just have one 

          10  quick question.  Do you know the total dollar amount that 

          11  was budgeted or set aside for this particular RFP? 

          12            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I do not have the dollar 

          13  value of the contract -  

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  In other words -  

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - with me.  I don't -  

          16            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - was there a limit?  Do 

          17  you know if there was a limit? 

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I'm, I'm pretty sure - yeah, 

          19  we - in, in the contract document itself, we will - we 

          20  identified the actual dollar amount of the contract award 

          21  and I, I don't, I don't have that - 

          22            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Is -  

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - in front of me; I 

          24  apologize. 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Is your 

                                         Page 72 




           1  question, you know, an estimate before the contract's lets 

           2  that -  

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um -  

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - if we go 

           5  over -  

           6            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Because they each request the 

           7  - they submit their own requests in their different prices. 

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, that's the point 

           9  I'm kind of driving at is obviously, what we're talking 

          10  about here is money for providing services and have you at 

          11  least identified - in other words, do you have an RFP?  My 

          12  limit on this RFP, I'm going to pull the plug after 

          13  $100,000 or $150,000. 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So during the negotiation 

          15  process, we sort of get into the number; we don't, we don't 

          16  share that up front.  But again, if you are interested in 

          17  the actual contract award amount, I can share that - 

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, what's the -  

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - with you cause -  

          20            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - actual award? 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I, I, I, I, I don't know 

          22  offhand. 

          23            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ms. Black, is that a number 

          24  you could stipulate to or you don't -  

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I don't have the contract in 

                                         Page 73 




           1  front -  

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I have -  

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - of me.   

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  No, I 

           5  really couldn't.   

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Do you -  

           7            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I mean, 

           8  there's, there's any number of factors that could go into 

           9  that. 

          10            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  No -  

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I mean -  

          12            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - do you know what the number 

          13  of this contract that's -  

          14            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, I have 

          15  absolutely -  

          16            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - been awarded? 

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - no idea, 

          18  nor could I even say.  I mean, it's a multi-year contract; 

          19  things could change.  I mean, budgets change.  The 

          20  departments could make different decisions about policy.  I 

          21  mean -  

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, that's why I asked 

          23  if there was a limit.  I didn't ask - yeah, yeah, I - 

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  No. 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I mean -  

                                         Page 74 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I understand -  

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I mean, now 

           3  there's not.  I mean, now I could tell you right now what 

           4  the not to exceed amount is.  I could tell you what that is 

           5  but that could change.  I mean, I'm sure we have a right to 

           6  terminate the contract tomorrow - 

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  No, I -  

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - and 

           9  probably we could add another $2 million dollars.  I mean, 

          10  there's no - there's no limit to what could be spent or 

          11  what might, they might decide to do.   

          12            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  She just gave Mr. Harlan his 

          13  remedy; they could terminate the contract tomorrow 

          14  [laughter]. 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Thank you. 

          16            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  [Laughter] 

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, yeah.  

          18  Try that.  Watch how fast I run to circuit court 

          19  [laughter]. 

          20            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, fair enough.  Ah, 

          21  your witness. 

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Ms. Kelsey, good 

          23  morning.  How are you? 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Good, how are you? 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Excellent, thank you.  

                                         Page 75 




           1  Um, I'm confused about this LBE thing, um, because your 

           2  testimony seems to be - if I understand it - that only the 

           3  person who signed - only the entity that signed the 

           4  proposal or the prime to use your, your term, only their 

           5  status, ah, is what dictates whether you get LBE -  

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You have to use -  

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Harlan, they can't hear 

           8  you. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Oh -  

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You have to use the mic 

          11  - 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'm sorry. 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  We just a call from the 

          14  -  

          15            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN: We are on television -  

          16            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - people who -  

          17            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - so -  

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And it's being recorded 

          19  and they can't pick up his voice. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  This thing right here? 

          21            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Just pull it closer to you. 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Just move it towards 

          23  you. 

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  You're too far away. 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Oh, okay. 

                                         Page 76 




           1            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  It's on; you're just too far 

           2  away from it. 

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So, so I'm sorry, I'll 

           4  start over.  Um, so for purposes of determining, ah, 

           5  whether LBE points are to be assigned, is the decision 

           6  based upon whether, um, one of the parties to the proposal 

           7  has that status?  Or both?  Or you seem to be saying that 

           8  the rule is since Quarles wasn't an LBE, there weren't 

           9  points available.   

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I didn't say that. 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Oh, okay.  So as long as 

          12  MWH met the criteria for, ah, LBE status, then that's all 

          13  that it took in order to get the 10 points.   

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I'm saying I didn't say that.  

          15  Um, Attorney Block made the point that Quarles & Brady 

          16  signed the proposal, the binding signature page.  And the 

          17  LBE program is applicable to the prime.  For purposes of 

          18  this evaluation, obviously we allow for MWH in this 

          19  scenario to - I mean, it was reviewed, it was submitted. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Just so I'm clear from - 

          21  and, and primarily for the board's, ah, purposes, so 

          22  assuming MWH met the criteria for LBE designation, then the 

          23  Quarles & Brady MWH proposal would be entitled to the 10 

          24  points? 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

                                         Page 77 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Now going back to 

           2  the, ah, affidavit -  

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - that we submitted - so 

           5  you have been in the - basically in charge of the 

           6  purchasing department since 2008. 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And during that time, 

           9  you've overseen literally hundreds of millions of dollars 

          10  of purchasing activity.  Fair? 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And you understand what 

          13  the rules and the processes and the guidelines because 

          14  that's your job. 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right?  Is that correct? 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And you also understand 

          19  that, ah, folks like MWH or other, ah, proposers when they 

          20  submit documentation to the city making representations 

          21  about their status, um, they can get in trouble if they are 

          22  not truthfully providing information about their status, 

          23  right? 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  That's fraud. 

                                         Page 78 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right. 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Did somebody in your 

           3  department reach a conclusion essentially then that MWH had 

           4  engaged in fraud by virtue of, ah, what's been marked as 

           5  exhibit 14, which is this affidavit, ah, attesting to its 

           6  LBE status? 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No, and again, it's important 

           8  to point out that, um, what I share relative to the square 

           9  footage of the various properties was communicated to me in 

          10  October, post contract award.  So -  

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, so the third page 

          12  of exhibit 14, um, which you said it's your understanding 

          13  was the basis for the person on your staff's decision to, 

          14  ah, basically say that MWH wasn't entitled - the MWH 

          15  Quarles & Brady proposal wasn't entitled to LBE points was 

          16  based on page three, correct? 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And, and by that, 

          19  that person - is that Ms. Jeffries? 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  That is the purchasing agent 

          21  that was working on this -  

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Karen Jeffries? 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - proposal. 

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Correct? 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  RFP.  Yes.   

                                         Page 79 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And your 

           2  understanding is she made that determination by simply 

           3  counting up the number of offices. 

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  That is my understanding. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right. 

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yeah. 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And -  

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And based on the 

          10  LBE program that's set forth in the city ordinances, as you 

          11  sit here today, you would concede that that's not the 

          12  appropriate way to make a determination as to whether 

          13  someone's entitled to the benefits that the city of 

          14  Milwaukee says should be afforded businesses that meet that 

          15  standard, correct? 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So counting up the number 

          18  of offices doesn't get you there, right? 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes, I would agree. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And, and so it's 

          21  fair to say then that in the decision to deny the MWH 

          22  Quarles & Brady proposal those 10 points, that was in 

          23  error. 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I would not necessarily yes 

          25  to that because I want to be careful about my response 

                                         Page 80 




           1  about that because I'm not - I'm still not really clear 

           2  based on what you submitted later as to whether or not 

           3  truly the Milwaukee - you know, never - yes, I will just 

           4  say yes because what we did, quite honestly, is we now have 

           5  amended this form to get at that information so we can see 

           6  the actual square footage, so I will say yes. 

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Ah, yes to - could you - 

           8  yes to what question?  Somewhere we got lost -  

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I think the answer is yes 

          10  that -  

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  That -  

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - the city made an error 

          13  -  

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Well, let me, let me explain 

          15  for myself; I'll do that.  I will say that I think further 

          16  due diligence should have been done to determine what the 

          17  square footage was for each of the properties.  That did 

          18  not occur.  We've amended the form since then to be more 

          19  specific about that.  As I stated, I think an assumption 

          20  was made that this particular, um, MWH has four offices and 

          21  that, um, the three of them are located outside of the city 

          22  of Milwaukee.  So an assumption was made that the combined 

          23  space, square footage, what have you, exceeded the space at 

          24  the Milwaukee location.  That was an assumption.  Um, 

          25  again, since this, um, has occurred, we've amended this 

                                         Page 81 




           1  form to ask proposers or bidders to tell us specifically 

           2  what, um, the square footage is for each business that's 

           3  located - or, excuse me - that's referenced in the LBE 

           4  form.   

           5            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair? 

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, Mr. Hoeschen? 

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ah, but Ms. Kelsey, I'm 

           8  confused.  Here we are talking about whether or not MWH Law 

           9  Group qualifies as an LBE.  But what I heard you say 

          10  earlier was that the proposal was, ah, submitted by Quarles 

          11  & Brady and so the determination as to whether or not they 

          12  are an LBE falls to Quarles & Brady, not to MWH.  Is, is 

          13  that what I understood? 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Tech - technically in the 

          15  ordinance, yes, that's true.  What I'm saying is throughout 

          16  the process, MWH was - it was reviewed, those points were 

          17  reviewed, as it relates to MWH, not Q&B; that wasn't even a 

          18  thought at the time, is what I'm saying.  Technically, it 

          19  applies to the prime.  Yes, technically, that's how it 

          20  works. 

          21            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And since this RFP has been 

          22  awarded, have you made that analysis as to Quarles & Brady 

          23  or not?   

          24            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  You mean reanalysis? 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yeah, I was just going to -  

                                         Page 82 




           1            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  No.  No, Quarles & Brady - 

           2  there's no, there's no affidavit for Quarles & Brady. 

           3            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Hmm. 

           4            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  The only affidavit -  

           5            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Right, okay. 

           6            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - is for MWH.  So, have you -  

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I haven't.  The contract - 

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Okay. 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - has been awarded, I mean -  

          10            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Right.  I understand. 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - what -  

          12            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I understand.  Thank you. 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Miss -  

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  If you, if you want to be 

          15  technical about it, it applies to the prime; Quarles & 

          16  Brady signed the proposal. 

          17            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  So then your pre - then 

          18  you're finding well, I, I understand your concerns about 

          19  your office's findings for MWH.  But if the prime was 

          20  Quarles & Brady and you received a proposal where the 

          21  affidavit was from MWH, Quarles & Brady would get no 

          22  points; the result would be the same, right? 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  If -  

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Because, because Quarles & 

          25  Brady -  

                                         Page 83 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  If, if they did not -  

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - did not submit an 

           3  affidavit. 

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  If they would not have 

           5  submitted an affidavit, they would not have earned the 

           6  points.   

           7            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Mr. Chair? 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I don't -  

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mister -  

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Oh, I'm sorry. 

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Fritsche? 

          12            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Um, the square footage that 

          13  is - is that part of the ordinance?  Is that part of your, 

          14  um, pol - how is that - where is that -  

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's in the ordinance. 

          16            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  It's in the ordinance. 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          18            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  So if someone, ah, submits 

          19  an application, ah, such as we find in, ah, exhibit 14, 

          20  page three where they're listing four offices, it would 

          21  lend to confusion, and again, if you're not handholding 

          22  applicants, it seems to me the burden is on them to, you 

          23  know, explain that Milwaukee is the largest office.   

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I would agree. 

          25            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Is that fair? 

                                         Page 84 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I think -  

           2            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  I mean -  

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - that is absolutely fair 

           4  assessment. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um, so Ms. Kelsey, you 

           6  said, um, in response to Mister - is it Hoeschen? 

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  It is, yes, thank you.  

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Mr. Hoeschen's question 

           9  that in fact, based on how the process or the ordinance 

          10  works, that the status of the prime is what drives whether 

          11  these 10 points are awarded.  Is that what your testimony 

          12  was now? 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Can - now when you have 

          15  the ordinance in front of you on page - on exhibit four - 

          16  can you direct our attention to where it says that? 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The ordinance on page four?   

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Exhibit four, I'm sorry. 

          19            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  That's chapter 370?  Is that 

          20  right? 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah, 365. 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Three -  

          23            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Three sixty-five, thank you.   

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  If you look at, um, section 

          25  365-7, it states that a contracting agency shall 

                                         Page 85 




           1  [inaudible] contract - contrary to federal, state or local 

           2  law regulation apply an award standard in all formal 

           3  competitive bids so that an otherwise responsive and 

           4  responsible bidder, which is a Local Business Enterprise, 

           5  shall be awarded the contract, provided that its bid does 

           6  not exceed the lowest bid by more than five percent.  So 

           7  we're referring to the actual bidder, not, not a partner, 

           8  not a subcontractor.  That is where, um, I would offer that 

           9  information resides. 

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  We - first of all, I 

          11  mean, you testified earlier that this isn't a bid process, 

          12  right?  This was a RFP.  You testified extensively about 

          13  the fact that there's a distinction between -  

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.  So -  

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - bids and RFP's, 

          16  correct? 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I'll go on to speak to the 

          18  RFP section, which is section B.  Um, it's similar language 

          19  but it, um, it speaks specifically to RFP's.  So again, 

          20  where we're referring to, um, the RFP that's submitted by 

          21  the, the proposers, the prime proposer; not a sub, not a 

          22  partner. 

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And does the word "prime" 

          24  appear anywhere in the ordinance in terms of dictating, ah, 

          25  who drives the award of LBE points? 

                                         Page 86 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  In section B it says, "A 

           2  contracting agency shall, unless contrary to federal, 

           3  state, or local law regulation, apply an award standard in 

           4  the composition of scales used to evaluate proposals 

           5  submitted in response to formal Requests for Proposals to 

           6  be com - to procure goods or services.   

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah, I see that, but I 

           8  don't see where that says that the only and determining who 

           9  gets the points, ah, you only look to a prime. 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  We're not speaking - the fact 

          11  that we receive proposals, RFP, from the prime proposer 

          12  from the prime bidder, we re - we have - we receive 

          13  proposals and bids from an entity, a firm, a business.  It 

          14  doesn't speak to subcontractors or partners - 

          15            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair? 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - a formal Request for 

          17  Proposals, not for joint proposals, not for subs. 

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Have you reviewed -  

          19            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair? 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah, go ahead, I'm sorry, 

          21  Mr. Hoeschen. 

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ah, I - can you look at the 

          23  front of page 16 for me?  Or exhibit 16 for me, please?   

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Ah -  

          25            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You may not have 

                                         Page 87 




           1  sixteen. 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           3            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  It's right there. 

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Laughter] 

           5            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  So this says, ah, "Response 

           6  to City of Milwaukee's Request for Proposal Number 14749 

           7  [Inaudible] for Disclosure," ah, "Disclosure Counsel 

           8  Services."  It lists the deadline and under that it says, 

           9  "Quarles & Brady and MHW [sic] Law Group."  Doesn't that 

          10  mean the proposer is both? 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No, what - technically, the 

          12  proposer is the individual of the firm that signs the 

          13  binding signature page. 

          14            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  On page eleven. 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct.  We have to know who 

          16  is submitting a response, who is submitting a bid.  At the 

          17  end of the day, who are we going to cut a check to -  

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  That's the contractor. 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - and it is, it is the 

          20  contractor that signs the binding signature page.  We have 

          21  to have some clarity with that. 

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  [Inaudible]   

          23            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, Mr. Harlan, you 

          24  had a question? 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So, Ms. Kelsey, up until 

                                         Page 88 




           1  the point until the award was issued and an appeal filed, 

           2  did you review any of the proposals that were submitted in 

           3  connection with this dis - disclosure counsel process? 

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I have. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, I understand you 

           6  have now, but the question is a little bit different.  At 

           7  the time of the proposal process when the evaluation 

           8  committee was considering it, when RFP was out, did you 

           9  review any of the proposals? 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And you saw then 

          12  what Mr. Hoeschen indicated, that, ah, on the proposal 

          13  submitted by Quarles & Brady and MWH, both firms were on 

          14  the cover page, right? 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And in the proposal, did 

          17  you understand how the economics and work division were set 

          18  forth? 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  What do you mean by the 

          20  economics and works division? 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, did the, did the 

          22  proposal discuss, um -  

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Who's the economics and works 

          24  division? 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, let me, let me 

                                         Page 89 




           1  clarify that.  Did the proposal submitted by MWH and 

           2  Quarles indicate how the work was going to be divided? 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And what was provided in 

           5  that proposal? 

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The, the joint venture 

           7  relationship.  

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, I don't think the 

           9  term "joint venture," was ever used, but -  

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Co-partners.  I could go back 

          11  and - do you want me to turn to the - you - 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I guess, isn't it true 

          13  that the proposal provided that the work would be divided 

          14  equally between the two firms? 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And also, wasn't 

          17  it set forth expressly in the proposal that the money to be 

          18  earned in connection with the proposal would be divided 

          19  equally?   

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I believe so.   

          23            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, you qual - you 

          24  qualified, "I believe so," but do you know?  Or - I mean, I 

          25  only want you to answer what you know. 

                                         Page 90 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I mean, I can go back -  

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  If you have to guess -  

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - and check -  

           4            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yeah -  

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Let me ver -let me verify. 

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Can you verify -  

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Can you give me seven minutes 

           8  to, um -  

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Take all the time you 

          10  need.   

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Something of that effect was 

          12  - um, proposal -  

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I understand that when 

          14  you look for something, it becomes very hard to find.  You 

          15  don't want to look for it, it's right in front of you. 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Ah -  

          17            MR. AVERILL:  And when someone points it out, 

          18  it's even harder.  

          19            ALL:  [Laughter] 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I think it's -  

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Legal 

          22  disclosure counsel -  

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  And I don't mind Mr. Harlan 

          24  like pointing directly to that page if that would help 

          25  expedite -  

                                         Page 91 




           1            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I'm looking 

           2  for it, too.  I -  

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  This - yeah, I do - but let's 

           4  confirm for the record. 

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Um -  

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Um -  

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:   I'm just trying to 

           8  eliminate the guesswork.   

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Let's see, proposed - okay, 

          10  tab D, but I don't have the tabs so be patient with me.  

          11  Sorry.   

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Look at, ah -  

          13            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Yeah, that's -  

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Look at tab K. 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Tab K.   

          16            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  [Inaudible] putting you 

          17  to work.   

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah, at 

          19  the end of that; just before tab L. 

          20            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  [Inaudible] 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I'm not sure - [inaudible].  

          22  Oh, here we go; here's tab L.  Which, um - can you find it?  

          23  [Inaudible] 

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Are you 

          25  looking for tab K? 

                                         Page 92 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yes, tab K. 

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  She has it; she's just trying 

           3  to find the language she needs. 

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's here. 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, yeah. 

           6            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  She, she's got it, Linda. 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It says, um, "Quarles," -  

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah. 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  "[Inaudible] minimum of 20 

          10  percent of fees paid to LBE," - does it -  

          11            MS. LINDA ELMER:  [Inaudible] 

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yeah, my finger's not 

          13  working that well.  

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  [Inaudible] 

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah, 20 

          16  percent, it's -  

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Oh, yeah.  So it says, 

          18  "Quarles and Brady is," yeah, "committed to a meaningful 

          19  partnership with qualified LBE, SBE firms," which that, 

          20  "And has chosen MWH Law Group as its partner.  Rather than 

          21  committing to the city's minimum of 20 percent of fees paid 

          22  to LBE, SBE firms, all fees will be split evenly between 

          23  both firms."  There it is, yes. 

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Thank you.  So going back 

          25  to the, um, this Form A that apparently was the reason why, 

                                         Page 93 




           1  ah, as your understanding that the, the MWH, um, Quarles 

           2  proposal had its points - after awarded in the procurement 

           3  process - withdrawn is because this Form A was not 

           4  submitted, correct? 

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And looking at the Form A 

           7  that, again, was the basis for your department's decision 

           8  to withdraw the points, what information does Form A ask 

           9  for that was not set forth in the proposal? 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  A description of the, um, 

          11  services to be offered by the SBE firm.  There's a, um, 

          12  section right after the general information section of the 

          13  form.   

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  You - okay, so we're 

          15  looking at exhibit five.  And can you direct me to -  

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's just right here; the 

          17  section one, general information required.  Um, so there's, 

          18  there's some lines here, a section, for you to describe the 

          19  work that will be performed.  So in this section, you would 

          20  have ideally explained your - what you were attempting to 

          21  do:  Your co-venture, your - how you would be involved with 

          22  this effort.   

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So if you look at exhibit 

          24  five, the, the winning proposer, they described what they 

          25  were doing.  

                                         Page 94 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right.  I'm just looking at 

           2  the form; I'm just telling you what that section of the 

           3  form - 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And, and -  

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - is for. 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - I guess the only point 

           7  I'm making is every piece of information that Form A asks 

           8  for is in the proposal, right?  There's, there's nothing 

           9  left out of Form A that is not disclosed in the proposal. 

          10            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair? 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Well, the acknowledgement - 

          12  the acknowledgment piece of the arrangement, etcetera, um, 

          13  you know, it's a form that, um, you know, typically the 

          14  prime - cause we want their acknowledgement that this 

          15  arrangement exists.  I mean, that's - you could argue 

          16  that's in the proposal.   

          17            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, Mr. Hoeschen, you 

          18  have -  

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  You could argue that. 

          20            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Harlan, your argument 

          21  here is substance over form? 

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Exact - well, my, my 

          23  argument is -  

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  [Inaudible] require the form.  

          25  I mean, that's the problem.  They - 

                                         Page 95 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well -  

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - they actually get to decide 

           3  what you have to submit. 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um, yeah.  This board has 

           5  the authority though to determine whether the process was 

           6  followed and if not, if this process was not a fair process 

           7  and an injustice was done to do something about it, and 

           8  that's why the appeal has been filed.   

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Fair -  

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So -  

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Fair enough.  I, I think 

          12  you can proceed with the question. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right. 

          14            MR. AVERILL:  Mister -  

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Just like in, in the 

          16  situation where firms apply for SBE certification and the 

          17  department makes a judgement that the person doesn't 

          18  qualify, I've actually observed hearings where this board 

          19  has decided, based on the circumstances, that certification 

          20  should be awarded.  Um, so with respect to this Form A, um 

          21  -  

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I just want to interrupt 

          23  you for a moment.  You had a, ah, question or a comment -  

          24            MR. AVERILL:  I, I -  

          25            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - Mr. Averill? 

                                         Page 96 




           1            MR. AVERILL:  - have a question for Ms. Kelsey. 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

           3            MR. AVERILL:  Um, is it, is it the city's 

           4  requirement that the form, quote end quote, Form A, be 

           5  submitted by all proposers? 

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           7            MR. AVERILL:  Thank you.   

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I just want to go on the 

           9  record on that particular note that's been asked and 

          10  answered prior to this answer.   

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And, and, Ms. Kelsey, 

          12  that's actually not an accurate response, right?  Cause it, 

          13  it doesn't - first of all, the SBE participation points 

          14  were optional, am I correct? 

          15            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Is there, is there an 

          16  objection? 

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah. 

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  What is the objection? 

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Asked and 

          20  answered; a ton of times. 

          21            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And -  

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I will sustain that.  I, 

          23  I'm going to ask -  

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And argumentative. 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's in black and white in -  

                                         Page 97 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  No, no.  You don't need 

           2  to respond. 

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Am, am I correct that SBE 

           4  points here were optional points that were available as a 

           5  bonus? 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Also asked 

           7  and answered. 

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Yes. 

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I will sustain that; 

          10  that that's been answered and that it was available 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.   

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  The LBE and SBE were 

          13  available 10 and 10, for a total of 20 bonus points.   

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So we were discussing, 

          15  ah, the, the issue of the LBE points.  And just so I'm 

          16  clear, for purposes of this procurement, the purchasing 

          17  department's decision was that as long as one party to the 

          18  proposal that works -  

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Also asked 

          20  and answered. 

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, hold on, let him 

          22  finish the question because I, I want to see what he says. 

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I just want to be clear 

          24  because we've talked about after the fact justifications 

          25  verses what the rules for this procurement.  Am I clear 

                                         Page 98 




           1  that for this procurement, what the requirement was, was 

           2  that one of the participants in a proposal had to meet the 

           3  criteria for LBE certification in the city ordinance and as 

           4  long as they did, they were entitled to the 10 points? 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Asked and 

           6  answered.   

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Is the answer yes? 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  That's - 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, thank you.  So the 

          12  Form A that, ah, we've been talking about, is this a form 

          13  prepared by purchasing or is it a different department? 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's prepared by, um, 

          15  purchasing.   

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So this isn't a form that 

          17  comes from the Small Business area? 

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I'm sorry, it - I apologize 

          19  for that because at one point, and let me be clear, um, the 

          20  Office of Small Business Development used to be a division 

          21  within what was known as the Business Operations Division, 

          22  so we were all together.  So I'm, I'm thinking from that 

          23  lens; this is an OSBD form, because it was our form because 

          24  we were together.  I apologize for the record.  This is an 

          25  OSBD form, yes.   

                                         Page 99 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Now during your, ah, 

           2  examination by the, by corporation counsel, ah, or city 

           3  attorney's office, um, you, you indicated that in order to, 

           4  to be able to get SBE bonus points, a firm had to be in the 

           5  status of a subcontractor.   

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No, I didn't say that.  I 

           7  didn't say that.   

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, then I, I 

           9  misunderstood you.  So it didn't matter what the status of 

          10  the firm was for purposes of a firm being entitled to the 

          11  SBE bonus points, as long as they had SBE certification, 

          12  ah, and completed Form A.   

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So turning to 

          15  exhibit 10, if you look at the third to the last sentence, 

          16  it reads:  "The Office of Small Business Development 

          17  Contractor Compliance Plan Form A must be completed and 

          18  submitted with your proposal if you intend to use an SBE 

          19  subcontractor." 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Is that a yes?  I mean, 

          22  you have -  

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  That's how it works. 

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - to verbalize. 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  That's not a reason -  

                                         Page 100 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  No, you -  

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  You just said, "Uh-huh." 

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You have to verbalize 

           4  it. 

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Oh, yes.  I'm sorry.  I'm 

           6  sorry, I need some more coffee.  I'm sorry.  

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So for the expressed - 

           8  the rules of the role for this procurement was that the 

           9  Form A is only required in two conditions.  If both 

          10  conditions are met, there is - you're seeing SBE points and 

          11  you have an SBE on your team and that -  

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Objection; 

          13  drawing a legal conclusion [laughter]. 

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I'm going to sustain 

          15  that. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So am I correct 

          17  then, looking at the rules that your office established for 

          18  this procurement, if a SBE firm was not operating as a 

          19  subcontractor, there was no requirement under the rules 

          20  that your office established for the Form A. 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No, I'm not saying that. 

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, how do you, how do 

          23  you, I guess, harmonize that with what you just read? 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Because that's typically the 

          25  way it works.  This is unusual.  That doesn't discount 

                                         Page 101 




           1  anything else; you just need to submit some Form A.  I 

           2  don't, I don't know how else to explain that.   

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So if I - again, 

           4  this -  

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Is that why you chose -  

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  No -  

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Can I ask a question? 

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Just answer -  

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Can I ask him a question? 

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Just answer questions 

          11  put to you because I don't want -  

          12            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Sorry. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So -  

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - arguing.  I mean, you 

          15  clearly say you have to submit Form A.  It wasn't done.   

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right. 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right. 

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So exhibit 10 was 

          19  prepared by your office, correct? 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Exhibit ten. 

          21            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Where are you reading -  

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Ah, yes. 

          23            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - that?  Exhibit ten? 

          24            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Yes, what page. 

          25            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Yeah. 

                                         Page 102 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Oh, so exhibit 10 -  

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - page two. 

           4            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Right. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah, under the SBE 

           6  participation box. 

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Yep.  Uh-huh. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  The sentence I read was, 

           9  I think, like the third from the bottom:  "The Office of 

          10  Small Business Development," - are you guys there yet? 

          11            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN: Yep. 

          12            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Yep. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  "The Office of Small 

          14  Business Development Contractor Compliance Plan Form A," 

          15  which is what we've been discussing, "must be completed and 

          16  submitted with your proposal if you intend to utilize an 

          17  SBE subcontractor."  Right? 

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Subcontractor. 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It says that, yes.   

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So what that means is if 

          21  the SBE firm is in some other capacity, not serving as a 

          22  subcontractor, that form is not required for this 

          23  procurement. 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It doesn't mean that.  That, 

          25  that's, that's not what that means.   

                                         Page 103 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  What does the term 

           2  "subcontractor" mean based on your understanding of the 

           3  term as a person in charge of the department that put this 

           4  procurement together? 

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  A subcontractor's a 

           6  subcontractor.  The -  

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - sub to a prime contract. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  In your experience, Ms. 

          10  Kelsey, have you ever seen a subcontractor contractor 

          11  relationship when both parties in that relationship are 

          12  dividing the money equally and the work equally. 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I've never seen -  

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Hold on, hold on a 

          15  second.  I only want you to answer it if you know it.  If 

          16  you don't know it, say you don't know it. 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay. 

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I don't want you 

          19  speculating. 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay.  Restate the question, 

          21  thank you. 

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Based on your knowledge - 

          23  you have extensive experience in procurement for the city, 

          24  correct? 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

                                         Page 104 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And in fact, under your 

           2  watch, every year millions of dollars are overseen by you 

           3  and your office, correct?  In terms of purchases? 

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And my, my only question 

           6  is have you ever seen a subcontractor contractor 

           7  relationship when both parties are equally dividing the 

           8  work and the money? 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No. 

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, thank you.   

          11            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Har - Mr. Chair? 

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Hoeschen? 

          13            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Harlan, are you telling 

          14  us that Quarles & Brady read this provision and made the 

          15  determination that they didn't need to submit Form A 

          16  because they didn't have a subcontractor? 

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Absolutely.  That's 

          18  exactly what I'm telling you. 

          19            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  That's naïve. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Well, I, I beg to 

          21  differ but that's exactly what - 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I just think it's a 

          23  stretch. 

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          25            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Alright.  I, I understand 

                                         Page 105 




           1  your argument.   

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So let me, let me ask it 

           3  this way, Ms. Kelsey.  What, what is a subcontractor?   

           4            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I - I'm going to -  

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I mean, she's using - 

           6  these are the operative words in the proposal in the RFP 

           7  that her office designed and drafted and submitted that 

           8  everyone had to operate under.  And I think it's a very 

           9  fair question to understand -  

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You can answer -  

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - what subcontractor 

          12  means? 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - if you, if you can, I 

          14  guess. 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  What is the definition of a 

          16  subcontractor? 

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Your office used the 

          18  term, so -  

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Sub to a prime contractor. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'm sorry? 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The sub to a prime 

          22  contractor.   

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And when you say a "sub," 

          24  does that mean that one is working for the other? 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  You could interpret it that 

                                         Page 106 




           1  way, yes. Yes.   

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair? 

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes, Mr. Hoeschen? 

           4            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  But, Mr. Harlan, let's read 

           5  the second full sentence of that bonus paragraph then.  It 

           6  says, "Proposers who utilize a city certified SBE vendor 

           7  for this contract will be eligible for up to 10 additional 

           8  points for subcontracting a portion of the work with a city 

           9  certified SBE vendor."  So you only get those points if you 

          10  use a subcontractor.  If you are arguing that Quarles & 

          11  Brady and MWH were simply one bidder, you're not eligible.   

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um, Mr. Hoeschen, let me, 

          13  first of all, the record is clear.  Ms. Kelsey has 

          14  testified as a person who's in charge of the procurement 

          15  that a firm did not necessarily have to be in that capacity 

          16  in order to get the SBE points.  Did she test - so testify 

          17  -  

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  But you don't get it both 

          19  ways, Mr. Harlan. You're saying you didn't have to submit 

          20  Form A because you weren't a subcontractor but then on the 

          21  other side of the coin, you're asking us to say, "Well, but 

          22  you don't have to read this language that says you only get 

          23  the points if you have a subcontractor."   

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah, Mr. Hoeschen, I'm, 

          25  I'm not asking you that.  I, I - Ms. Kelsey testified 

                                         Page 107 




           1  clearly on the record that the points were not a function 

           2  of being a subcontractor.  That's what she said; that's the 

           3  testimony. You can't unscramble that.  That's her 

           4  testimony.  Her office was in charge of the procure - of 

           5  the procurement.  That's what she testified. 

           6            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  But she also testified that 

           7  subcontractor doesn't mean subcontractor for purses - for 

           8  purposes of the Form A and you're telling us to ignore 

           9  that.  

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I don't think that's -  

          11            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  You, you get one or the 

          12  other; you don't get them both. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah, I'll move on cause I 

          14  think - 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - the record is clear but 

          17  I do just want to finish the questioning about what is a 

          18  subcontractor because I think the words obviously matter in 

          19  the procurement; that's what we're here for.   

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And I, and 

          21  I'm sorry, I'm just going to interrupt for two seconds and 

          22  say obviously, we're getting up to 11:00.  I know, ah, Mr. 

          23  Anderson has to leave by noon and we -  

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Ah, how much more time 

          25  for - 

                                         Page 108 




           1            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - have 

           2  another witness who's going to have problems this 

           3  afternoon, so.   

           4            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  How much more time for 

           5  the questioning - 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um -  

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - that you anticipate 

           8  for Ms. Kelsey? 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And I -  

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Probably another, ah, 

          11  five minutes at the most? 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, okay.  

          13  I'm sorry.  

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'll move on.   

          15            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  [Inaudible] 

          16            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  [Inaudible] I do, too. 

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah, Ms. Kelsey, when did 

          18  you become aware of the issues relating to, ah, I guess, 

          19  two bidders not receiving, ah, or basically having their 

          20  points withdrawn that had been awarded in the procurement 

          21  process? 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Recently. 

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, so not until after 

          24  the award was made was that decision something that you 

          25  were aware of.  And was that decision made by the 

                                         Page 109 




           1  evaluation committee or was it made by your office? 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The decision to rescind the 

           3  points? 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yes. 

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  My office. 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So the evaluation 

           7  committee went through, assigned SBE points, and your 

           8  office made the decision to withdraw the points, correct? 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And so the, the 

          11  evaluation committee was never afforded an opportunity to, 

          12  um, make a decision about whether the points should be 

          13  awarded or not. 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And is there 

          16  somewhere in the RFP documents, um, or the city's 

          17  ordinance, that allows in a RFP process the purchasing 

          18  department to make that decision? 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The process is such that the 

          20  compliance review for the different requirements does occur 

          21  on the front end of the process.  So the proposal should be 

          22  sent to the committee with that compliance review for the 

          23  different, um, requirements beforehand.  But that wasn't 

          24  the case.   

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So the, the new - the 

                                         Page 110 




           1  standard operating procedure for, ah, how procurement 

           2  should be handled in the RFP context - if, if I understand 

           3  your testimony - for whatever reason wasn't followed in 

           4  this case.   

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  If you're 

           6  aware.   

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Or if you understand the 

           8  question. 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Laughter] 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Can you restate the question? 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, you said normally 

          12  the compliance process happens before the folks on the 

          13  evaluation committee get the proposals. 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So they know, for 

          16  instance, if someone is not compliant. 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  So in checking for forms and 

          18  things like that, that, that would happen beforehand, yes. 

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right.  And that didn't 

          20  happen here. 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Correct. 

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  With respect to 

          23  the Quarles & Brady and MWH proposal, you, you've indicated 

          24  that one problem with the proposal was the failure to 

          25  submit this Form A, given that the proposal team was 

                                         Page 111 




           1  seeking SBE points, correct? 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Restate the question, I'm 

           3  sorry. 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Let me ask it a different 

           5  way.  Other than the fact that the Quarles & Brady MWH 

           6  proposal omitted Form A, were there any other defects, any 

           7  other things missing, any other things omitted from the 

           8  proposal that would suggest that it was a sloppy proposal? 

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Not that I'm aware of. 

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Did they fail to 

          11  follow - did the proposal fail to follow the city's rules 

          12  and guidelines in any other respect? 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Not that I'm aware of. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So the, the only thing 

          15  that was amiss was this Form A that you maintain, ah, 

          16  needed to be filed in order to get the SBE points.   

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Is that, "Yes?" 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Did you, did you 

          21  look at, ah, exhibit two?  I just want to confirm that 

          22  that's your email correspondence with a representative of 

          23  Quarles & Brady on the date and time indicated? 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes, it is.   

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Going back to the, 

                                         Page 112 




           1  ah, LBE form, ah, affidavit that was submitted by, ah, MWH 

           2  in connection with the MWH Quarles bid.  

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  There was a question 

           5  raised about, ah, what was listed on the last page in terms 

           6  of property. 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Hmm-hmm. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Does that page ask for 

           9  information about leases? 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No. 

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  What was the answer? 

          12            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No. 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay.   

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And it asks for business 

          15  property, correct?  It asks for locations of business 

          16  property, right? 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Um, space is not - the amount 

          18  of space is not referenced, correct. 

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, not only that, but 

          20  it asks about business property, so that's computers, 

          21  notebooks, desks.  Business property is not just leases, 

          22  right? 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No, that's not the -  

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  That calls 

          25  for legal conclusion. 

                                         Page 113 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  That's not -  

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Objection. 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - the intent of the 

           4  ordinance.   

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Hold on a second.  

           6            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's relative -  

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  There's an objection. 

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Oh, I'm sorry.   

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Ah, I guess -  

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I, I just want to address 

          11  there was a concern raised by the board that maybe MWH was 

          12  responsible for confusing, ah, the purchasing officials in 

          13  this particular instance and the point I'm making is that 

          14  this asks for where your business property is located.  It 

          15  doesn't say, "Where you have leases."  It doesn't ask that 

          16  question.  So if you are properly putting information on 

          17  this form, it requires you to list, literally, the location 

          18  in terms of city, whatever, where you have property, which 

          19  we did. 

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And you're 

          21  free to make that argument to the board. 

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  It's not an argument; 

          23  it's, it's on the form.   

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, I think you stated 

          25  that pretty clearly and I think we understand what's going 

                                         Page 114 




           1  on. 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

           3            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  In that regard. 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'll move on.  Thank you. 

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  We don't have any 

           6  confusion there.   

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Going back to the, um, 

           8  the Form A, um, is it my understanding if - was it your 

           9  testimony that if MWH was the only bidder for this that it 

          10  would be, would be required to fill out Form A? 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  If it were seeking to qualify 

          12  for SBE points, yes. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So it would fill out a 

          14  Form A, which asks to indicate who was going to subcontract 

          15  with in terms of an SBE even though it is an SBE? 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  The, the intent of the form 

          17  is to simply provide a description of how the SBE is going 

          18  to serve under, or operate under, the contract.  So it's a 

          19  - the form is required of all proposers.  It's, um - that's 

          20  what it is. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.   

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  A follow-up question at 

          23  this point, if it's appropriate.  Was there any objections, 

          24  lodged by Quarles and Barry - Quarles and Brady - or MWH 

          25  about having to submit Form A, to your knowledge? 

                                         Page 115 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No. 

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Thank you.   

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Just to follow-up on, ah, 

           4  Chairman Bobot's question, where in the process would we 

           5  lodge an objection about Form A, ah, if there was no 

           6  subcontractor part of the proposal process? 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's the question and answer 

           8  process, or period, to obtain clarity about what's being 

           9  asked for under the proposal or what, you know, any 

          10  questions that you may have about the forms.  It's the 

          11  process that I referred to earlier, which is typically 

          12  seven days before, um, the proposals are due. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Were there any 

          14  discussions that you were a part of - leaving aside the 

          15  city attorney - um, were there any discussions with the 

          16  controller's office about this particular procurement?  Did 

          17  you talk to Mr. Matson, Mr. Lee, about this procurement? 

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  At what point? 

          20            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Early on.  I mean, they have 

          21  to submit a request, you know, the requisition, the actual 

          22  forms, clarity would occur, if necessary, regarding any 

          23  information in a proposal.   

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And did you -  

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  That's just the normal back 

                                         Page 116 




           1  and form in trying to get an RFP on the street for, um, a 

           2  firm. 

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And did -  

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Ah, user department, sorry. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And were you personally 

           6  involved in those discussions or was that someone on your 

           7  staff? 

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I don't recall having any 

           9  conversations directly with Marty or anybody from the 

          10  comptroller's office about it, no. 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um, just a couple of 

          12  additional questions.  Um, for clarity's sake, under what 

          13  circumstances, based on your understanding of the 

          14  purchasing rules, are departments like - or, or, um, parts 

          15  of the city government, like the controller's office - 

          16  allowed to enter into an agreement without going through a 

          17  competitive bid or an RFP process?  Is there a dollar 

          18  amount? 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Restate that question.  I'm 

          20  sorry. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Is an RFP / competitive 

          22  bidding process always required?   

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  What is required from user 

          24  departments is, um - no.  No.  So departments are required 

          25  to submit a procurement request, a requisition to the 

                                         Page 117 




           1  purchasing department, when the dollar value of the service 

           2  is $5,000 or more.   

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

           4            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  That's -  

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So if this board, for 

           6  instance, um -  

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  They may - I'm sorry. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - wanted to, as a remedy, 

           9  simply have MWH / Quarles & Brady added as an additional 

          10  disclosure counsel firm, if that was the wisdom and 

          11  judgment of this board, um, is there anything that would 

          12  preclude them from doing that as far as you know? 

          13            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  They would have to, 

          14  obviously, follow city policy and procedure.  I mean, that, 

          15  that's an option.  I mean, in accordance with city policy 

          16  and - policies and procedures.  I don't -  

          17            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  [Inaudible] 

          18            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - really understand the 

          19  question, to be honest, where you're going with that.  I 

          20  know where you're going with that, but -  

          21            ALL:  [Laughter] 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I'm sorry. 

          23            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  We all did. 

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I think we realize what 

          25  he's trying to do is an example we can do as remedy but -  

                                         Page 118 




           1            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  [Laughter] 

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - that would be up to us 

           3  and then others. 

           4            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  We're not going to -  

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  It would not be fair for 

           7  you to answer that question -  

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yeah. 

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - cause it would be up 

          10  to the other people, other than yourself -  

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes, not my - right? 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I think I'm done.  

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Any further questions 

          14  from the city? 

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I do have a 

          16  couple; I think can - yeah, get them done in, let's say, 

          17  five minutes.  Um, you were earlier asked about the LBE 

          18  affidavit submitted by MWH and if you concluded that fraud 

          19  was involved in the submission of that form.  In your 

          20  experience, could there be other explanations why a form 

          21  submitted might not rise to the level of fraud but might 

          22  also, um, demonstrate noncompliance with the requirements 

          23  of the ordinance? 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And what 

                                         Page 119 




           1  might those be? 

           2            UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER:  Negligence. 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Questionable information. I 

           4  mean, I don't - I mean -  

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  A person 

           6  could make an error or misunderstand their requirements of 

           7  the ordinance, for instance.   

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Right. 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  Um, 

          10  with regard to the, um, proposal submitted by Quarles & 

          11  Brady, exhibit 16 that you have in front of you, um, if you 

          12  skim the table of contents and look at the tabs, um, as 

          13  opposed to say, the cover page, which indicates both 

          14  parties there.  Um, a lot of the tabs mention "lead 

          15  disclosure counsel."  Is that, ah, correct there on the 

          16  table of contents page, which is under tab A? 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, and one 

          19  of them has proposed - ah, tab L - a proposed code 

          20  disclosure counsel information.  Is that correct? 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          22            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, if just 

          23  skimming through that, the sections that deal - let's see, 

          24  one, two, three, four, five - at least deal with lead 

          25  disclosure counsel information.  Um, do those sections, ah, 

                                         Page 120 




           1  talk primarily about Quarles & Brady or about MWH? 

           2            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Quarles & Brady.   

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Thank you.  

           4  Um, and now I guess my last questions just deal with, um, 

           5  Form A, um, and we've got a copy of that in - as exhibit 

           6  five.  Um, but speak to it generally; not specifically to 

           7  the Hurtado [sounds like], um, form.   

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Which exhibit?  I'm sorry. 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I'm sorry, 

          10  exhibit five. 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Okay.   

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  In addition 

          13  to the description of the services that are provided by an 

          14  SBE subcontractor, um, there are acknowledgments on that 

          15  form as you testified to, correct? 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Why might 

          18  those be important? 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Because we want all of the 

          20  parties to acknowledge the, the arrangement; what's going 

          21  to, um, the service that will provided, um, by all parties 

          22  involved.   

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Is that, 

          24  um, sometimes particularly important that an SBE attest to 

          25  that information? 

                                         Page 121 




           1            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Why's that? 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Because we don't want to be 

           4  in a situation where we're possibly dealing with fronts, or 

           5  pass throughs, or we want to make sure that the 

           6  relationship is legitimate.  So we want the, you know, the 

           7  SBE firm to attest to the partnership, the - whatever the 

           8  relationship is.  We need them to attest to that.   

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  And 

          10  at the top of page one of that form, um, which for some 

          11  reason in my copy - I may be looking at it wrong - is kind 

          12  of on the back.  Um, does it indicate that this form must 

          13  be submitted with, ah, an invitation to bid or a request 

          14  for proposal? 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Thanks.  

          17  Um, is there another means, um, by which a person who's 

          18  considering, um, submitting a bid or a req - or a proposal 

          19  in response to Request for Proposal might, um, question or, 

          20  um, file some sort of appeal process regarding, um, 

          21  specifications that appear in a proposal or a - or Request 

          22  for Proposal - or Request for Bid, aside from the question 

          23  and answer period you mentioned that was present here? 

          24            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  There's an appeal process for 

          25  bids, yes. 

                                         Page 122 




           1            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, after 

           2  the award that exists, right? 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Um, actually, um, a bidder, 

           4  um, can actually award the, um - I'm sorry, appeal the 

           5  actual specifications or the award.  So there's two options 

           6  available. 

           7            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I expect 

           8  appeals are available for, um, for Request for Proposals, 

           9  too? 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No. 

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.  Um, 

          12  and I think that's all I've got.   

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Any follow-up questions, 

          14  Mr. Harlan? 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Just, just a couple 

          16  follow-ups.  I forgot to ask you, um -  

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, is 

          18  that re - re-direct?  Or, I forgot to ask -  

          19            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I don't know what the 

          20  question is, so -  

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Is - was there an 

          22  interview process contemplated in this proposal process? 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, 

          24  again, re - or, I forgot to ask you, or -  

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, it's -  

                                         Page 123 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I'll let her answer if 

           2  she knows. 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Interview, of, whom? 

           4            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  It's kind of general. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah, so as part of the 

           6  RFP process, is there usually, um, well, strike that.  As 

           7  part of the normal RFP process, um, once the closest, ah, 

           8  firms in terms of points are narrowed, is there typically 

           9  an interview process? 

          10            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  It's an option; it's not a 

          11  requirement.   

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Do you know if 

          13  that was contemplated in this particular case? 

          14            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Not - no, I don't.  I can't 

          15  answer that. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Counsel asked you 

          17  about, ah, Quarles & Brady being designated as lead, 

          18  correct? 

          19            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  She, she asked me if that was 

          20  referenced in the proposal. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah. 

          22            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes. 

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And in fact, RFP required 

          24  that a firm be designated as lead, correct? 

          25            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

                                         Page 124 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And she also asked you 

           2  about the fact that Quarles & Brady signed the proposal 

           3  that came from MWH and Quarles & Brady but in fact, it was 

           4  only one signature block, um, for a firm to sign, correct? 

           5            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.  Yes. 

           6            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I don’t think he heard you. 

           7            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I'm sorry, yes. 

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  It's okay.   

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.    

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And then, finally, 

          11  with respect to the acknowledgement significance of the 

          12  Form A, you would agree if a proposal was coming from two 

          13  law firms where they set forth what the relationship is, 

          14  that clearly indicates to all parties involved, as well as 

          15  the purchaser, what the relationship is, correct? 

          16            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Yes.   

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And then, the truly final 

          18  question.  On this Form A, um, if you look at the top, it 

          19  said the, the form must be submitted by everybody, whether 

          20  you have SBE participation or not.  Correct? 

          21            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No. 

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Doesn't it say that? 

          23            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  No, regardless of SBE 

          24  participation or the lack thereof. 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right.  So that means if 

                                         Page 125 




           1  you have SBE participation or not -  

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well -  

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - you're supposed to fill 

           4  out that form. 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  You're 

           6  getting -  

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Is that what it says? 

           8            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  I don't know why it says 

           9  that; that makes no sense. 

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right. 

          11            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  We wouldn't ask anybody to 

          12  submit it if they're not - if there is no SBE involvement.  

          13  That's a question for OSBD -  

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Oh. 

          15            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  - I'm sorry. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So that would defy common 

          17  sense, correct? 

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, we're going to 

          19  just note that exhibit five has been admitted as evidence. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And, in fact -  

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Just [inaudible] from 

          22  that. 

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And, and in fact, you 

          24  didn’t disqualify any firm for their failure to submit that 

          25  form, correct?  Chapman and Cutler was one of the 

                                         Page 126 




           1  proposers.  Was their proposal disqualified because they 

           2  didn't submit Form A? 

           3            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Proposals aren't disqualified 

           4  for not submitting that form; we don't disqualify proposers 

           5  for not submitting it.  What we say is if you don't submit 

           6  it, you cannot earn the points associated with it.   

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, that's not what 

           8  this form says but that - I think the board can take it for 

           9  what it's worth.  No other questions. 

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Any further questions, 

          11  Ms. Block? 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  No. 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Um, can this witness be 

          14  excused? 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Absolutely. 

          16            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You are excused. 

          17            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  Thank you so much. 

          18            ALL:  [Laughter] 

          19            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  We're going to take 

          20  about a four minute break, just -  

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.   

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  On the record, Ms. 

          23  Block, and you now have another witness? 

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Actually, 

          25  I'm finished calling witnesses and the floor is, ah, Mr. 

                                         Page 127 




           1  Harlan's. 

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, at this time, I 

           3  take it the, ah, other than rebuttal witnesses, you're -  

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Correct. 

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, Mr. Harlan, you 

           6  may call your first witness. 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  David?   

           8            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Yep. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And what's your last 

          10  name, David? 

          11            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Anderson. 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Anderson. 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  So you're going to call 

          14  David Anderson to the stand.  Mr. Anderson, could you raise 

          15  your right hand, please? 

          16            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Do you solemnly affirm the 

          17  pains and penalties of perj [sic] in the state of Wisconsin 

          18  that the test [sic] you're about to give is the truth, the 

          19  whole truth, and nothing but truth? 

          20            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Yes.   

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Could you spell your 

          22  last name for the record, Mr. Anderson? 

          23            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  A-n-d-e-r-s-o-n. 

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, your witness, Mr. 

          25  Harlan. 

                                         Page 128 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah, Mr. Anderson, I 

           2  promise this is going to be quick. 

           3            ALL:  [Laughter] 

           4            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Thank you.   

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So you, you're with PFM, 

           6  correct? 

           7            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Yes. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Alright, so you're a 

           9  financial consultant, worked with cities, municipalities, 

          10  towns, what have you. 

          11            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  That is correct. 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And, ah, is this the 

          13  first time you've been on an evaluation panel? 

          14            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  No.  

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, so you've done this 

          16  on some other occasion.   

          17            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Yes. 

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Was the process, as far 

          19  as you observed it, typical of what you see when you've 

          20  served on other panels? 

          21            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  There's - this is the first 

          22  time I used the Bonfire software, so from that perspective 

          23  it was different. 

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          25            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  So most panels do have 

                                         Page 129 




           1  scoring processes and things like that but not in a 

           2  formalized, computer software process, so that part was 

           3  different. 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And so do you - how did 

           5  you end up on the panel, if you know? 

           6            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  I was asked; that's all. 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And by Mr. Lee?  Or who 

           8  was it? 

           9            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  You know, I think by, ah, 

          10  the procurement office.  I don't know if Mr. Lee gave him - 

          11  gave my name there or not. 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Did you discuss 

          13  being on the panel with Mr. Lee? 

          14            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  I don't specifically recall 

          15  that. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          17            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  If --  

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So you don't know whether 

          19  prior to you being on the panel you had any discussions 

          20  with Richard Lee or anyone from the controller's office. 

          21            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  No. 

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And, um, did the - 

          23  you mentioned Bonfire so I'm, I imagine at some point you 

          24  went online to record your scores of the various proposals? 

          25            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Right. 

                                         Page 130 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um, did you all have a 

           2  meeting of the evaluation committee prior to that? 

           3            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  No, I did not.  I don't 

           4  believe so. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  There, there wasn't an 

           6  in-person meeting at all? 

           7            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  After the - when we went 

           8  online, there was an in-person meeting. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So after you 

          10  recorded your scores, you all assembled together at the 

          11  city hall somewhere -  

          12            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Right. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - to discuss your 

          14  thoughts about the firms. 

          15            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Right. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Was there a discussion 

          17  about the, ah, potential interview process? 

          18            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  I don't recall that there 

          19  was. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Um, do you know if 

          21  it was intended that there'd be an interview process 

          22  depending on the relative scores of the firms? 

          23            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  I don't know that. 

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  You heard a lot - you 

          25  were here, um, when Ms. Kelsey was testifying - you heard a 

                                         Page 131 




           1  lot of discussion about SBE and LBE. 

           2            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Right. 

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Do, do you remember those 

           4  topics coming up in any of your discussions with your 

           5  fellow committee members? 

           6            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  What came up is before our 

           7  discussion of the, um - not the LBE; I don't remember that 

           8  one at all.  The SBE, the discussion was, um, stopped 

           9  before it started because the procurement officer said 

          10  that, that the form wasn't, wasn't there so any point we 

          11  assigned wouldn't be assigned. 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So in -  

          13            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  [Inaudible] discuss that. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Do you remember the woman 

          15  or the gentleman's name who conveyed that? 

          16            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Um, I - you mentioned Ms. 

          17  Jeffries?  Is that -  

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yes.  Karen Jeffries.  

          19            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Yeah. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And she was a person that 

          21  communicated to the evaluation committee that 

          22  notwithstanding your prior scoring in the SBE category, it 

          23  didn't make sense to have a discussion in person because 

          24  the points weren't going to be awarded. 

          25            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  That's correct. 

                                         Page 132 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Did you have any 

           2  role in developing the proposal? 

           3            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  I don't, I don't recall.  I 

           4  mean, I see a lot of things coming all the time.  This 

           5  happened last summer and I, I just don't recall if I had - 

           6  was asked to look at it or not.   

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And prior to being 

           8  part of the evaluation committee, you were serving as a 

           9  financial advisor to the city, and in particular, working 

          10  with Mr. Lee and Mr. Matson, correct? 

          11            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  That's true. 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And as part of that you 

          13  also worked with the winning bidder in this procurement, 

          14  Katten Muchin, right? 

          15            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  That's correct. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And that's the firm that 

          17  office is in Chicago. 

          18            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  That's correct. 

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Alright.  Just one final 

          20  question.  Um, to the best of your recollection, can you 

          21  tell us what Ms. Jeffries communicated on the issue of 

          22  Small Business, um, points not being available, um, because 

          23  the firms didn't do something?   

          24            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Yes, she just said that the 

          25  proper information was not where - the proper form was not 

                                         Page 133 




           1  submitted. 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Was there any questioning 

           3  of her in terms of what she meant by that? 

           4            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  No, I don't believe so.   

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So you obviously read all 

           6  the proposals, correct? 

           7            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  That's correct. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And based on the scoring 

           9  comments that I saw from you, you seem to have a clear 

          10  understanding of what the relationship was between the SBE 

          11  firms and the non-SBE firms that bid together, correct? 

          12            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Correct. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Even if you were 

          14  like missing any information to be able to make a scoring 

          15  decision, correct? 

          16            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Correct. 

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And you understood how 

          18  the economics and the work was going to be divided, 

          19  correct? 

          20            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Correct. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  That's all I have.   

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Any questions from the 

          23  state? 

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  No. 

          25            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, can this witness 

                                         Page 134 




           1  be excused? 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  [Inaudible] 

           3            ALL:  [Laughter] 

           4            MR. DAVID ANDERSON:  Thank you. 

           5            MR. AVERILL:  Thank you, sir. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Thank you 

           7  so much for coming.  We appreciate it. 

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Harlan, your next 

           9  witness? 

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um, Miss - why don't we 

          11  call Ms. Jeffries. 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, I'm 

          13  sorry.  We - okay.  Did we talk about that? 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Actually, maybe we can 

          15  call Ms. Kelsey back.   

          16            MR. AVERILL:  Yeah. 

          17            ALL:  [Laughter] 

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  [Inaudible] she's been 

          19  excused but obviously, by the look she gave -  

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  The look she gave me. 

          21            ALL:  [Laughter] 

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  That was, that was -  

          23            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You won't answer your 

          24  phone. 

          25            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  That was the most unimpressed 

                                         Page 135 




           1  look I have seen since I left home this morning. 

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yeah, if somebody who 

           3  knows her, have you seen her, [inaudible].   

           4            ALL:  [Laughter] 

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Let me know 

           6  if you know decide to bump [inaudible]. 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  [Inaudible] Dennis?  I 

           8  don't think [inaudible].  What's the gentleman's name in 

           9  Budget? 

          10            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Jerry 

          11  Allens?  Dennis and Jerry Allen are the two that are -  

          12  Dennis, Dennis is from budget.   

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          14            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Jerry's 

          15  from ERS. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Who, who else is left 

          17  from the committee? 

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, my 

          19  colleague who's in L.A. and, ah, Richard. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  I definitely want 

          21  Richard. 

          22            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK: Yeah, 

          23  obviously.   

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right. 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And then 

                                         Page 136 




           1  [Inaudible] is the only other guy -  

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah. 

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - that 

           4  [inaudible] to us. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Let's let Mr. Matson stay 

           6  in his office. 

           7            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And, um -  

           9            MS. RHONDA KELSEY:  [Inaudible]? 

          10            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah, if 

          11  [inaudible].   

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Let me have Dennis, 

          13  please.   

          14            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Dennis from 

          15  - 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah. 

          17            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.   

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And then Jerry -  

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Tell Jerry 

          20  to -  

          21            MS. LINDA ELMER:  We're still on TV but okay, who 

          22  -  

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Sorry.   

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Do you want to have - do 

          25  you want to have them come up? 

                                         Page 137 




           1            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah, ah - 

           2  why don't we - no, Karen's probably going to take a while, 

           3  would you agree? 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah.  She -  

           5            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  But can we 

           6  tell, um, Jerry Allen he's off the hook? 

           7            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Oh, okay.   

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Would the other 

           9  witnesses - would that be available after -  

          10            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah. 

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - Ms. Jeffries? 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Karen, 

          13  we're a little worried about her timing so we want to get 

          14  her. 

          15            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I guess what I'm worried 

          16  about is that they go on a lunch break and they're not 

          17  available and we'd like to -  

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah, well 

          19  that's true.  We might want to just kind of let people 

          20  know. 

          21            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Okay.  Bye. 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  This - that they'll be 

          23  called -  

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah.   

          25            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - to -  

                                         Page 138 




           1            MS. LINDA ELMER:  He's very upset about it but 

           2  he'll -  

           3            ALL:  [Laughter] 

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Maybe just 

           5  let, um, Dennis and Richard and Marty know they're still on 

           6  the hook but, you know, we're going -  

           7            MS. LINDA ELMER:  [Inaudible] 

           8            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - into the 

           9  afternoon. 

          10            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Okay.   

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  It's, ah, that they 

          12  should stay in the building. 

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.   

          14            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  [Inaudible]? 

          15            [INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND CONVERSATION] 

          16            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I guess that's up to the 

          17  committee.   

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  What do you want to do? 

          19            UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER:  Do you want to do a 

          20  bifurcated meeting? 

          21            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Do you want to go to lunch?  

          22  Or stay for lunch?  I mean, I don't mind working through 

          23  lunch if -  

          24            MR. AVERILL:  I would, I would say let's work 

          25  through lunch so that -  

                                         Page 139 




           1            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  As long as we're done by - 

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Any objections to -  

           3            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - 1:30 or 2:00. 

           4            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - if we work through 

           5  lunch? 

           6            MR. AVERILL:  Yeah, otherwise [inaudible]. 

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I, I mean - I have a feeling, 

           8  ah, if, if we're going to be done by 1:30 or 2:00 by 

           9  working through lunch, I'm willing to do that.  But at some 

          10  point, lack of food will cause - 

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay. 

          12            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - lack of attention.  Ah, so 

          13  -  

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I think, you know, my 

          15  perspective is I think the board has an understanding of 

          16  what the issues are based on the witnesses we've had so 

          17  far, um, and so that's why his testimony was very quick.  

          18  So out of respect for you all's time, I'm trying to get 

          19  through it. 

          20            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yeah, I think we also 

          21  have a pretty good understanding of the issues. 

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          23            MR. AVERILL:  But, but also, we should have a 

          24  full hearing for you -  

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah. 

                                         Page 140 




           1            MR. AVERILL:  - to make your full case. 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And we will.  In, in 

           3  terms of - I will, you know, feel very comfortable with 

           4  what we're doing.   

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Right. 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  But we'll also move 

           7  expeditiously. 

           8            MR. LEE:  [Inaudible] 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  We're not 

          10  going to be ready for you for a while, Richard.   

          11            MR. LEE:  Okay. 

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Sorry.  

          13  Karen, why don't you come up. 

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Richard, are you - 

          15  you're free to stay if you'd like. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, we, we actually -  

          17            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  It's just that we need 

          18  to -  

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - reached an agreement -   

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah, he 

          21  would prefer not have to witness. 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Oh, yeah. 

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  [Inaudible] on TV. 

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Actually, 

          25  why don't you sit here, Karen.  You don't mind if Karen 

                                         Page 141 




           1  sits here, do you?   

           2            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  No, that's fine. 

           3            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I think it 

           4  will be easier for -  

           5            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  That's fine. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - Emery to 

           7  see the witnesses if I'm not leaning all up in -  

           8            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Could you pull the 

           9  microphone. 

          10            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ms. Jeffries, there we go.   

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay.  Would you please 

          12  raise your right hand? 

          13            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Do you solemnly affirm the 

          14  pains and penalties of perj [sic] in the state of Wisconsin 

          15  that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the 

          16  whole truth, and not [sic] the truth? 

          17            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes.   

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Could you state your 

          19  name and spell your last name for the record, please? 

          20            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Karen Jeffries, J-e-f-f-r-i-

          21  e-s. 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay, Mr. Harlan, your 

          23  witness. 

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah, good - I, I'm 

          25  assuming it's still morning.  Good morning, Ms. Jeffries.  

                                         Page 142 




           1  How are you? 

           2            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Good morning.  Fine, thank 

           3  you.   

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um, so you're in a 

           5  purchase, purchasing department.  Are you a purchasing 

           6  agent? 

           7            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes, I'm a purchasing 

           8  specialist.  

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          10            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Procurement specialist.   

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  How long have you 

          12  been in the purchasing department, ma'am? 

          13            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Since 2011. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And in that time, 

          15  you've been part of a number of RFP scenarios like the one 

          16  that this hearing's about? 

          17            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And you report 

          19  directly to Ms. Kelsey? 

          20            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Alright.  So how 

          22  did you get involved in this particular procurement?  Did 

          23  she, Ms. Kelsey, ask you to do that?  Or is it 

          24  automatically come - you have certain departments that you 

          25  work with? 

                                         Page 143 




           1            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No, it was just assigned by 

           2  director, Kelsey.  

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

           4            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes.   

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And, um, tell me about 

           6  the evaluation committee process.  How did, how did that 

           7  committee get formed? 

           8            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The department proposes a 

           9  committee and then that information is shared with the 

          10  director for a final decision as to is this a complete 

          11  committee in terms of, ah, evaluation? Um, should anyone be 

          12  added? So that's a decision that our director would make, 

          13  so -  

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          15            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - that's essentially the 

          16  process. 

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So that's the general 

          18  process and in this particular case, is that how the 

          19  process played out? 

          20            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And when you say the 

          22  department, was that the controller's office? 

          23            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And in particular, was 

          25  that Mr. Lee? 

                                         Page 144 




           1            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I would have made the email 

           2  request to Mr. Lee and his response would have been shared 

           3  with the director, yes. 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And just for 

           5  clarity, all the people then who made it on to the 

           6  evaluation committee essentially were people that Mr. Lee 

           7  suggested? 

           8            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Correct; proposed by their 

           9  department, yes. 

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right. 

          11            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  And he is their 

          12  representative that I would work with on this particular 

          13  solicitation. 

          14            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Could, could you hold the 

          15  microphone just a little closer? 

          16            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Sure. 

          17            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  You're just a little - thank 

          18  you.   

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right.  And so, there 

          20  weren't, for instance, individuals you or Ms. Kelsey 

          21  suggested who made it on the committee. 

          22            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No.   

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Now originally, Mr. 

          24  Matson was supposed to be on the committee but he wasn't, 

          25  correct? 

                                         Page 145 




           1            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I'm not sure if he was 

           2  supposed to be on the committee.  He's - as the leader of 

           3  that department - he should definitely be aware of some of 

           4  the initial communications but it's not my understanding 

           5  that he was supposed to be on the committee. 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. And I understand 

           7  that you all have, you know, various rules in the 

           8  purchasing area that, that, ah, people follow.  One, one of 

           9  the, one of the most important rules, would you agree, is 

          10  that basically, once the RFP is on the street, the 

          11  proposers don't have contact or are not supposed to have 

          12  contact with anybody on the committee, right? 

          13            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  That is correct.   

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right.  They're not to 

          15  ask questions, send them emails, or anything like that, 

          16  right? 

          17            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Correct.   

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Alright.   

          19            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And is it your 

          21  understanding of the department rules if that were to 

          22  happen, then the evaluation committee member reports that 

          23  to purchasing and the committee, correct? 

          24            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  We would; that would be the 

          25  expectation.   

                                         Page 146 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Alright.  Now in terms of 

           2  the RFP for disclosure counsel that is again the subject of 

           3  this hearing, can it - kind of walk us through how that 

           4  developed.  How did the RFP come together as a document? 

           5            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  We get the scope of services 

           6  from the department and the paperwork is compiled and then 

           7  loaded into our Bonfire software portal and then a date is 

           8  determined for it to be actually posted and it's, ah, 

           9  reviewed by our director to make sure that the scope is, 

          10  um, complete and then it's posted. 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So is it fair to say the 

          12  process is kind of hybrid in the sense that the department 

          13  is providing some of the substantive elements and then 

          14  there are other elements that are kind of used in all the 

          15  RFP processes that the purchasing department supplies. 

          16            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Correct.   

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And that would, in this 

          18  particular procurement mean that, for instance, the 

          19  purchasing department, um, really provided the information 

          20  about Local Business Enterprise and Small Business 

          21  Enterprise, correct?   

          22            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Correct.   

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  That's not something that 

          24  Mr. Lee or Mr. Matson dictated. 

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Correct. 

                                         Page 147 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Now it's my 

           2  understanding, um, that there is a process in connection 

           3  with these proposals when the Office of Small Business 

           4  looks at what is, what is intended to be procured and makes 

           5  a decision about whether, ah, there should be a requirement 

           6  for SBE participation, correct? 

           7            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  That's correct. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And was that process 

           9  followed in this situation? 

          10            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes.  A document that, um, 

          11  is generated by the purchasing division called the Request 

          12  for Exception to Bid form is submitted to the Office of 

          13  Small Business Development and that's where the business 

          14  analysts from their department will take a look at the 

          15  scope and determine if an SBE requirement is to be placed 

          16  on the solicitation before it's published.   

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And is the reason that 

          18  there are even SBE requirements because of the city's 

          19  desire, um, from a policy standpoint to have significant 

          20  SBE participation in procurements? 

          21            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Ah -  

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  If you know. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I was just 

          24  going to say - thank you. 

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The code of ordinances.   

                                         Page 148 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right. 

           2            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And based on, ah - okay.  

           4  And, ah, and based on your knowledge of the procurement 

           5  process, it has been a area of priority to have SBE 

           6  participation in the procurement process, right? 

           7            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  That is to be checked for 

           8  each solicitation before it goes out, yes. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right.  And based on your 

          10  understanding, it's something that the city and the mayor 

          11  and the purchasing department is serious about, correct? 

          12            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  If you're asking if that's 

          13  my assumption, that would be a correct assumption. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And in this 

          15  particular case, do you have a recollection of - because 

          16  apparently, there was no requirement placed on this 

          17  particular procurement for SBE participation; it was an 

          18  optional item. 

          19            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Correct. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Did you have any 

          21  discussions with the folks in the Office of Small Business 

          22  Enterprises or Small Business Development in terms of why a 

          23  decision was made in that regard? 

          24            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No. 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  But you recall 

                                         Page 149 




           1  getting a document of some sort back from them? 

           2            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Correct. 

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  You still have 

           4  that document? 

           5            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  It would be in the file and, 

           6  again, it would be entitled the Request for Exception to 

           7  Bidding form. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And why is it 

           9  called Exception to Bidding?  Were you asking the 

          10  department to have an exception for SBE, SBE requirement? 

          11            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I can't speak to why that is 

          12  the title of the form. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  But in, in sending 

          14  information to that department, you weren't asking for an 

          15  exception to the SBE requirement to be made.   

          16            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No. 

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          18            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  There's a doc - a portion of 

          19  the document that gives them an opportunity to place a 

          20  percentage and sign off on that document.  Why it's 

          21  entitled that, I'm not sure. 

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.   

          23            UNKNOWN FEMALE SPEAKER:  [Inaudible] 

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.   

          25            UNKNOWN FEMALE SPEAKER:  [Inaudible] 

                                         Page 150 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  You have the exhibits in 

           2  front of you? 

           3            UNKNOWN FEMALE SPEAKER:  [Inaudible] 

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Ah, in the 

           5  binder. 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  You can look at number 

           7  eight. 

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And Ms. Jeffries, you 

           9  can look at number eight and after you're done looking at 

          10  it, you can let us know and you can resume questioning. 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Are you familiar with 

          12  that document, ma'am? 

          13            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The Purchasing Liaison 

          14  Manual?  Yes.   

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And what is it? 

          16            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  It is a document that's 

          17  placed out on our - the city's website to give departments 

          18  insight as to general processes that are used in the 

          19  purchasing division and some of our requirements. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And this is, would 

          21  you agree, an important document for purposes of, ah, kind 

          22  of the rules of the road for the procurement process, 

          23  correct? 

          24            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes, that would be the 

          25  intent. 

                                         Page 151 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  One of the things that I 

           2  noted, unless I missed it, there's, there's nothing in this 

           3  document about requiring a Form A; a form from - that talks 

           4  about the SBE participation, correct? 

           5            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I don't see it referenced. 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Alright.  And I 

           7  note that this document was amended in February? 

           8            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I -  

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Were you -  

          10            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Our procurement - I would 

          11  not be involved in that.  Our procurement administrator 

          12  would be most likely involved with that -  

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          14            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - and any updates to this 

          15  document.  But it is dated - updated February 28, 2018.  I 

          16  can say that.  

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          18            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  That's printed right there. 

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, and you don't know 

          20  how it was changed from what was in place during the 

          21  procurement to that date, correct? 

          22            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No.   

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And, um, do you know 

          24  anything about what's provided in paragraph three relative 

          25  to there not being an appeal process for RFP's? 

                                         Page 152 




           1            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I can't speak to this 

           2  document.  The procurement administrator and our director 

           3  handle the - this document.  We, as agents, don't.   

           4            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Where are 

           5  you?  I'm sorry, where are you? 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  It's on page two in the 

           7  third paragraph.  It says in bold, "There is no appeal 

           8  process for an RFP," which this is, right? 

           9            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I really 

          10  don't know where you're looking, sorry. 

          11            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Page 41 -  

          12            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  It's on 

          13  page forty-one? 

          14            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  It's labeled page 41; it's 

          15  page two of the - 

          16            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Oh, I -  

          17            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - exhibit. 

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - thank 

          19  you.   

          20            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And she did answer the 

          21  question; she doesn't have any knowledge. 

          22            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I'm sorry. 

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.   

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  What leads to that or 

          25  may not - it sounds like it's beyond her, her, ah, job 

                                         Page 153 




           1  title, or function.   

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Now, did you participate 

           3  in, in all aspects of this procurement? 

           4            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, so, um, walk us 

           6  through how the process worked.  Ah, you know, once the 

           7  committee was put together, what, what happened next? 

           8            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Once the committee is put 

           9  together, the RFP is approved and posted, proposals are 

          10  due, and they're received, then I look at the documentation 

          11  that has been received in our Bonfire portal and to be sure 

          12  that, um, general requirements are met, that binding 

          13  signatures are there, um, just basic information before I 

          14  move the proposals to the evaluators.  And this is done 

          15  through the Bonfire software, so it's not a matter of a 

          16  verbal conversation.  It's - I look at the proposals 

          17  received to see if they are in a form that is reviewable by 

          18  the evaluators and then I move the proposals, technically, 

          19  in the Bonfire software to the evaluators and they received 

          20  emails letting them know that these proposals are now ready 

          21  for your evaluation process.   

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          23            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  And once they're reviewed by 

          24  the evaluators, then the scores are compiled.  What I look 

          25  at are the Local Business Enterprise and to see if the 

                                         Page 154 




           1  forms are there and if the forms are there, so I'm backing 

           2  up somewhat before they go to the evaluators.  I am looking 

           3  at the Local Business Enterprise forms that are submitted, 

           4  or not submitted, when it's not applicable.  And I do look 

           5  at the Office of Small Business Development forms if they 

           6  are there so that I have an idea of what I am forwarding on 

           7  for the evaluator's review. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

           9            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  So once the review is done, 

          10  then I look at the scores that are in Bonfire and I - 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, let's - before we 

          12  get to the scoring aspect of it -  

          13            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Okay. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So the standard operating 

          15  procedure when, when you run these procurements in RFP 

          16  context, is - in respect to the LBE forms to the extent 

          17  it's, ah, applicable - you look at it and then determine 

          18  whether the proposers have complied with the, um, 

          19  requirements.  Um, and if not, then you so indicate that 

          20  they have not complied, correct? 

          21            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I look at the forms to see 

          22  if they are submitted, if they are included, and then I 

          23  will go ahead and apply the points.  Or I will have a 

          24  conversation with my director to find out if this 

          25  particular form should have points assigned.  But, um, so 

                                         Page 155 




           1  sometimes I do have to consult with the director but that's 

           2  after the evaluation process is done by the evaluators and 

           3  their scores are in Bonfire. 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, so -  

           5            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Hmm-hmm. 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - just so I'm clear about 

           7  the standard operating procedure, so you're saying that it 

           8  is not the standard operating procedure to, um, essentially 

           9  withhold points or disqualify firms that have failed to 

          10  follow the procurement process in terms of submitting the 

          11  necessary forms prior to the scoring. 

          12            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  It is not the standard 

          13  process to do that, no. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Would it surprise 

          15  you that Ms. Kelsey said that that was the standard 

          16  process?  Okay, I'll move on.  So, so basically in this 

          17  situation, um, you looked at the, the various proposals, 

          18  took note of whether they had the LBE affidavit or the SBE 

          19  form and ultimately, passed the proposals on to the 

          20  evaluation committee without comment. 

          21            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Right, because they're not 

          22  responsible for scoring LBE.  They would be responsible for 

          23  scoring the SBE - 

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN: Okay. 

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - aspect of the scoring in 

                                         Page 156 




           1  Bonfire.  So it can move on because that's something that 

           2  is determined within the purchasing division; never by the 

           3  evaluators.  So there's no reason to hold it up for that.  

           4  So can you refer me then to, I guess - since exhibit number 

           5  eight is kind of the critical document that lays out how 

           6  the, the process is supposed to work - can you refer me to 

           7  the part of that that says that the evaluation committee 

           8  does not have decision making authority on the issue of 

           9  whether LBE bonus points or SBE points are to be awarded? 

          10            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I'm glancing - as I said, I 

          11  don't offer this or contribute to this - so, um, I don't 

          12  see any reference to LBE. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So is it in the city 

          14  ordinance?  Where would I find support for what you said in 

          15  terms of the fact that the evaluation committee does not 

          16  score proposals or award points for LBE or SBE? 

          17            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I don't know where you would 

          18  find it.  I don't see SBE or LBE referenced in - 

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          20            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - section eight. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  But aside from 

          22  exhibit eight, is there anywhere you're aware of where that 

          23  is set forth?  Is it in an ordinance?  

          24            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I can't say I'm aware of it 

          25  being in writing anywhere. 

                                         Page 157 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Are the - are the, ah, 

           2  evaluation com - ah, committee members told that they have 

           3  absolutely no input or discretion in terms of whether LBE 

           4  bonus points or SBE bonus points are to be awarded? 

           5            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  They're two separate 

           6  categories in the Bonfire software.  So when I release the 

           7  proposals to the committee, the category for SBE is 

           8  available for them to score.  The LBE category is not 

           9  released to them to score.  So -  

          10            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, so -  

          11            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - but it's not verbally 

          12  stated but it's not provided to them to score LBE; only 

          13  SBE. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So the SBE scoring 

          15  is available to them irrespective of whether a firm has 

          16  filled out a Form A. 

          17            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  It is available to them to 

          18  score.  

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And so, in this 

          20  particular instance, the proposals were sent to the 

          21  committee; no firm was disqualified based upon not having 

          22  completed Form A. 

          23            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No; no firm was 

          24  disqualified. 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And in fact, the 

                                         Page 158 




           1  evaluation committee was asked to conduct an evaluation to 

           2  award points based on the SBE component.   

           3            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  They - that category was 

           4  provided and they did provide scores for that category. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And were they 

           6  allowed to vote in terms of whether the SBE withdrawal of 

           7  points was an appropriate measure to take? 

           8            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No, that is a discussion 

           9  that I had with the director after the scores are received 

          10  in Bonfire. 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Now, so, so the 

          12  proposals went to the evaluation committee, they scored it 

          13  in Bonfire, and at some point, the evaluation committee got 

          14  together to meet.  

          15            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Right.  I convene a meeting 

          16  for everyone to come together and talk about their scores 

          17  and I let them know who the highest ranked proposer is and 

          18  it gives them an opportunity to talk about their scores 

          19  that they recorded in Bonfire, as well as any notes that 

          20  they entered into the Bonfire software. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So what I'm struggling 

          22  with is trying to understand the purpose of them meeting 

          23  after they've scored the proposals.  Um, is there a process 

          24  whereby they can change their scoring?   

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The purpose of the meeting 

                                         Page 159 




           1  is - first, back up.  The assumption is that they have not 

           2  had an opportunity to meet with each other.  They've scored 

           3  independently in the Bonfire software so as a committee, 

           4  this is their first opportunity to come together and look 

           5  at the scores.  Their names are not attached to the scores 

           6  but I show them on a screen the compilation of the scores 

           7  so that they can see the highest ranked, second ranked, 

           8  third ranked proposer.  So that is the purpose of that 

           9  initial meeting and, um, yeah, so that would be the 

          10  purpose. 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So is, is the 

          12  standard operating procedure based on how the process 

          13  normally works that once the committee is aware of the 

          14  scoring, do they have discretion to be able to change the 

          15  scoring?   

          16            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  It would depend on the 

          17  circumstance.  Say, for example, it's a project that would 

          18  require demonstrations from top ranked proposers, if they 

          19  go through the demonstration process for a day or two and 

          20  see a product, how it actually works, and if they feel they 

          21  need an opportunity to say, change or revise their scores 

          22  based on what they read in the proposal and saw in the 

          23  demonstration, so that would be, um, I can't say, no, 

          24  they're never given an opportunity to revisit their scores 

          25  but there'd have to be a true, valid reason to give that 

                                         Page 160 




           1  opportunity. 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So it's my understanding, 

           3  um, that one of the potentials here were, was that the 

           4  committee, um, was contemplating having interviews.  Is 

           5  that correct? 

           6            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  That is an opportunity.  

           7  When I present the agenda, that is one of the items I ask 

           8  them:  Do you feel that you need an interview with the 

           9  highest ranked proposer or their top two highest ranked 

          10  proposers?  So that is an option that is up to the 

          11  committee and I would facilitate that process if they felt 

          12  they needed that. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And so that 

          14  specifically was raised with this evaluation committee. 

          15            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  With all committees, if they 

          16  feel they need an interview or they need demonstrations, 

          17  hmm-hmm. 

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And do you recall what 

          19  the discussion was, ah, specifically - I don't want you to 

          20  guess about how it generally happens - but for this 

          21  procurement, do you recall what was said about the wisdom, 

          22  um, of, of having interviews or not? 

          23            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I can't recall specifically 

          24  but the op - if they wanted it, I would have facilitated 

          25  it.  So as a committee, they did not ask for that as 

                                         Page 161 




           1  something that they needed in order to make a final 

           2  decision on accepting the highest ranked proposer according 

           3  to the scores.  And the meeting is, again, an opportunity 

           4  for them to hear from each other what their thoughts were 

           5  about the proposals and if they felt that they gained an 

           6  insight that should be revisited in their scores, then 

           7  again, that would be an opportunity but, um, yeah. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

           9            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Normally they don't revise 

          10  their scores unless someone on the committee expresses a 

          11  true need to be able to do that once they gain some 

          12  insights from that initial discussion. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So, you -  

          14            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  It's not common. 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  You mentioned that one of 

          16  the things that could possibly change the scoring is, for 

          17  instance, if a, a decision was made by the evaluation 

          18  committee to have a bidder or proposer do a demonstration.  

          19  And based on your understanding of the procurement rules, 

          20  that could allow the committee to, for instance, take a 

          21  number two ranked proposer and make that person the 

          22  awardee, correct?   

          23            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The end result; that could 

          24  be the end result. 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right.  And would the 

                                         Page 162 




           1  same hold true for interview process?  If they were really 

           2  impressed with a proposer who was the number three ranked 

           3  proposer and thought based on what was communicated during 

           4  the interview process, that number three proposer should be 

           5  the number one proposer.  Based on your understanding of 

           6  the process and the rules, was that permissible? 

           7            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Once they revisit their 

           8  scores, there could definitely be a change in the ranking. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  So are 

          10  you - so some of the information we have, ah, exhibit 

          11  number three, which is data that comes from Bonfire, I 

          12  believe.   

          13            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So, um, trying to 

          15  understand what you inputted verses what the committee 

          16  inputted.  So looking on page one under the Katten Muchin 

          17  proposal, it says, um, "Comments:  Lowest cost," in that 

          18  evaluation group number one.  "Primary reason:  Other, 

          19  recorded on page one of Affidavit of Compliance."  What's 

          20  that mean?  Well, first of all, I'm assuming you wrote - 

          21  you, you inputted that information into Bonfire? 

          22            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes, for anything that has 

          23  my name attached to it, that would be my comments that I 

          24  added in.  For cost, I'm the only person that would 

          25  evaluate the cost and assign the cost points, and then LBE, 

                                         Page 163 




           1  hmm-hmm. 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And it says, 

           3  "Affidavit of Compliance;" that it was, "Recorded on page 

           4  one of Affidavit of Compliance."  What was recorded? 

           5            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Okay, there - Affidavit of 

           6  Compliance would indicate that whatever name was there, um, 

           7  I have there, "No affidavit."   

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, that's just - 

           9  that's under the bonus points - 

          10            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Hmm-hmm. 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - category.  I'm just 

          12  trying to figure out what that means.  Does that mean that 

          13  you had notes on the Affidavit of Compliance that you 

          14  inputted into Bonfire?  Or what?  What's, what's that mean? 

          15            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I can't say what that means; 

          16  that's not something that I would have typed in there, 

          17  "Recorded on page one."  That's not something that I would 

          18  have entered there.  My comments are in caps, "NO 

          19  AFFIDAVIT."  So maybe the system - I see that it's repeated 

          20  again, "Recorded by Karen Jeffries," um, "Recorded by 

          21  Richard," so it may be the system maybe inputting and 

          22  printing information there?   

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          24            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  And it's prefaced with, 

          25  "Recorded on," "Recorded by."  It's not something that I 

                                         Page 164 




           1  type in. 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Got it.  Going to, 

           3  um, on that same page under A2, you have, "SBE 

           4  corrections," and it says, "Quarles & Brady, minus 9.6."  

           5  So am I correct what that means, um, is that when the 

           6  points were calculated, they got nine point - that proposal 

           7  got 9.6 and here a decision is being made by your 

           8  department or you to take those points away. 

           9            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The decision was made by - 

          10  after speaking with my director and reviewing all of the 

          11  scores - the decision was made to take those points away 

          12  because they did not submit their plan. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          14            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Hmm-hmm. 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And -  

          16            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  And the same for Duane 

          17  Morris.   

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          19            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  So that's after the 

          20  evaluators have entered their scores. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And, um, just so 

          22  I'm clear, your, your testimony is that prior to making the 

          23  decision to withdraw the 9.6 points, you have a specific 

          24  recollection of talking with Ms. Kelsey about that issue. 

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  About the entire ranking 

                                         Page 165 




           1  because once I've had the meeting with the committee and I 

           2  receive an email from the committee pretty much stating 

           3  that, who they would like to go with, that they are 

           4  confirming the highest ranked proposer, then I present that 

           5  information to the director and sit down and share with her 

           6  who the highest ranked proposer is, second ranked, and what 

           7  I found in the aspects that I scored and discuss what do I 

           8  do with this matter here.  Because if they don't have their 

           9  plan, they shouldn't have the points.  And if you're going 

          10  to take away points from one, you take points from the 

          11  second vendor.  So the conver - the conversation was larger 

          12  than just SBE, LBE.  It's a matter of many other aspects 

          13  before I was - would move into award.  Yeah, this would 

          14  have been part of a bigger conversation with her. 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, so, so in this 

          16  particular case, you're saying that the evaluation 

          17  committee voted, they assigned points, and then when the 

          18  committee got together as a group, by that point in time 

          19  you had met with Ms. Kelsey and decided that the points 

          20  should be withdrawn. 

          21            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The points were, were not 

          22  supported by the required OSBD form and so everything that 

          23  we publish that says that form was required if you wanted 

          24  to receive SBE points.  So by, by it not being there, 

          25  that's one thing that I would have presented to her.  And 

                                         Page 166 




           1  the fact that there was a second vendor that received 

           2  points, so that would -  

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right.  I'm just, I'm 

           4  just trying to understand the timing of it; that, that's 

           5  it. 

           6            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Okay.  That would have been 

           7  after the committee had provided their scores and I can see 

           8  that points before this summary is published on our website 

           9  that would be inaccurate for them to have points so that's 

          10  a discussion that I would have had so that she knows why 

          11  I'm removing these points because I'm the only one that - 

          12  for this RFP - that could go into Bonfire and change the 

          13  points. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          15            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  So -  

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And so that happened 

          17  before the committee met? 

          18            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No, that would have been 

          19  after they met and I'm ready to award and it was part of a 

          20  bigger discussion. 

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So how would the 

          22  committee have been in the position to figure out what they 

          23  wanted to do without a final determination being made about 

          24  the points for LBE and SBE? 

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  And that would have been 

                                         Page 167 




           1  when I discussed with her, "This is where it stands right 

           2  now, this is what was presented to the committee.  Now I 

           3  need to do know what do I do about these SBE points and 

           4  LBE, as well?  Because if the form is there, do we allow 

           5  and give them the bonus points for LBE?"  So it was part of 

           6  a bigger discussion; what do we do with the forms that are 

           7  submitted for LBE and SBE. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, but isn't that 

           9  information that the committee would want to know? So it's 

          10  one thing if there's a 20 point difference -  

          11            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  If the - after that 

          12  discussion, if the ranking was to change, then yes, I would 

          13  have to go back to the committee.  After that discussion, 

          14  larger discussion, the ranking did not change.  So they 

          15  were comfortable going with the highest ranked proposer.   

          16  The ranking did not change. 

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  But we now know 

          18  from Ms. Kelsey's testimony that your department has 

          19  admitted a mistake as it relates to LBE points being 

          20  awarded; that was testified to that those 10 points should 

          21  have been awarded to the Quarles & Brady MWH proposal.  

          22  That's after the fact.  But isn't that information that the 

          23  committee could have used, for instance, to determine 

          24  whether they have an interview process or not? 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Objection; 

                                         Page 168 




           1  calls for speculation. 

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Um, would you know?  Or 

           3  would you have to speculate?  Would you have to guess? 

           4            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I would have to - I would 

           5  say speculate because -  

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Alright, I'll - 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well -  

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - sustain it. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, let me ask the 

          10  question this way.  So based on the process and the rules 

          11  and the procedures, is information like whether a firm went 

          12  from 80 points to 98 points and, therefore, there was a 

          13  closer gap between one and two, is that information under 

          14  the city's rules, under the department's rules, that the 

          15  committee could have used in making a determination to have 

          16  a interview process as a final step in the decision making? 

          17            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The question is out there 

          18  for the committee; I don't know how they would have 

          19  considered it if -  

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  No, I - 

          21            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - the points had been 

          22  closer. 

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'm not asking you to 

          24  determine - 

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  But -  

                                         Page 169 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - what the committee 

           2  would have done.  I'm just simply asking you based on the 

           3  rules that existed at the time, is that information the 

           4  committee could have used to decide that they want to bring 

           5  two firms in for interviews before making a final award? 

           6            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I can't say that it couldn’t 

           7  have been used. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So the answer is, yes, 

           9  that is information they could have used. 

          10            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  It could have been shared.  

          11  It would have been useful, I'm sure, but it's up to the 

          12  committee.  When I ask them do they feel they need an 

          13  interview, um, with the highest ranked proposers, 

          14  regardless of the gap -  

          15            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  [Inaudible] answer is 

          16  yes. 

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yeah, ah -  

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Ah, you know -  

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And in fact though, they 

          20  were deprived of that opportunity for this procurement, 

          21  correct -  

          22            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  They -  

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - because they didn't 

          24  have that information? 

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  They were asked if they 

                                         Page 170 




           1  wanted interviews and the answer was no. 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right. 

           3            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  They felt comfortable with 

           4  the highest ranked proposer.  I don't know if the scores 

           5  had been closer if that would have affected that decision; 

           6  I don't know. 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Now going to - on 

           8  this LBE issue, LBE issue, same exhibit, number three, just 

           9  quickly - um, ah, under the bonus point category, um, it 

          10  says, "No affidavit for the Quarles & Brady MWH proposal."  

          11  You see that? 

          12            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Towards the middle of the 

          14  page? 

          15            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Hmm-hmm. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Those are comments you 

          17  would have inputted, correct? 

          18            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And that's false? 

          20            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  For Quarles & Brady?  There 

          21  was no affidavit.   

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  In the proposal that was 

          23  submitted by Quarles & Brady, is it your testimony that 

          24  there was no affidavit submitted in that proposal? 

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  With Quarles & Brady named 

                                         Page 171 




           1  on the document? 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right.  With, with 

           3  anybody on the named on the doc - I'm saying you received 

           4  in Bonfire a proposal that Quarles & Brady submitted, 

           5  correct? 

           6            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Correct. 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And there's been 

           8  testimony from Ms. Kelsey, as long as one of the parties in 

           9  that proposal, um, submitted an affidavit, ah, that was 

          10  accurate as to, ah, LBE status, the proposal was entitled 

          11  to points, correct? 

          12            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I, I'm sorry, for the record, 

          13  I, I don't believe that was Ms. Kelsey's testimony. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well then, I, I think it 

          15  -  

          16            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  You’re welcome to ask your 

          17  question but I don't know that Ms. Kelsey said that.   

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  What is -  

          19            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I -  

          20            Ms. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The -  

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Did you have a discussion 

          22  with -  

          23            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The LBE form -  

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Let me -  

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Sorry. 

                                         Page 172 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'll withdraw the 

           2  question.  Did you have a discussion at some point in the 

           3  process or after the award as to whether, um, a LB - the 

           4  LBE points should have been awarded to this proposal? 

           5            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  There was no discussion 

           6  before the award except for a conversation, a larger 

           7  conversation, with director Kelsey regarding how should 

           8  this be awarded, given certain facts surrounding this.  I 

           9  know your document, ah, that you submitted stated that 

          10  you're not aware of a prior contract for a disclosure by 

          11  counsel services.  There was a prior contract and there was 

          12  a contract in place when this RFP was let and published.  

          13  So when it was time to -  

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Let, let me - I'll 

          15  withdraw the question because I don't think we're on - 

          16  we're communicating. So my question is, at any point in 

          17  time, did you have a discussion with your boss, Ms. Kelsey, 

          18  about whether the correct determination was made to deny 

          19  the Quarles & Brady and MWH proposal LBE points?  Whether 

          20  it was yesterday or last year? 

          21            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes, there was a discussion 

          22  about -  

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN: Okay. 

          24            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - the documents submitted 

          25  for that proposal and whether or not points would apply. 

                                         Page 173 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And at some point 

           2  in time, did Ms. Kelsey tell you that looking at this, it 

           3  looks like that proposal should have received 10 points? 

           4            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay, so she never told 

           6  you that. 

           7            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No. 

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And your 

           9  understanding of the rule is that only the person, ah - in 

          10  this particular instance, Quarles & Brady - only if they 

          11  had submitted an affidavit would LBE points be awardable. 

          12            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No, that's not true.   

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          14            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Either party that's party to 

          15  the proposal can submit the LBE form for review.  

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right.  And if it is a 

          17  valid LBE form, then either party to the proposal - the SBE 

          18  or the non-SBE - would be entitled to the 10 points. 

          19            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So I think that's 

          21  clear now on the record that the, the evidence from the 

          22  city is that no matter which one of the parties had the 

          23  certification, um, who were parties to the proposal, the 10 

          24  points were to be awarded. 

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  And that question, 

                                         Page 174 




           1  essentially, you can - LBE points can be applicable to 

           2  either party of a proposal that's generally being asked and 

           3  answered in prior RFPs in terms of responses to questions 

           4  received that are published in addendums.  So, yes, that is 

           5  a general understanding that points are available for 

           6  either party to a proposal. 

           7            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Right.  And -  

           8            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  If it's valid. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And, um, in this case, 

          10  you had a discussion with Ms. Kelsey and indicated that you 

          11  didn't think that LBE points should be awarded to the MWH 

          12  Quarles & Brady proposal because it appeared that MWH that 

          13  submitted a affidavit, um, had more offices outside of the 

          14  city than inside of the city. 

          15            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No.  When I talked with her, 

          16  it was - the form itself was not definitive. 

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So what is - what 

          18  are you -  

          19            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  So what do I do?  My 

          20  question would have been what do I do?  Do we give them the 

          21  points or not?  The form itself is not, was not definitive 

          22  for me so I posed a question to her because I couldn't - I 

          23  didn't have a definitive answer.   

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  What is your 

          25  understanding of the criteria that must be met in order for 

                                         Page 175 




           1  a person seek - or a business seeking LBE status to get the 

           2  points awarded to them? 

           3            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  It says 50 percent of their 

           4  real estate where they conduct their business must be in 

           5  Milwaukee, 50 percent or more, and then there's some other 

           6  criteria listed on the affidavit.  But if the affidavit is 

           7  submitted and notarized properly, that is a testation to 

           8  the fact that the vendor or the proposer is affirming that 

           9  they do qualify in accordance with the criteria that's 

          10  listed on the affidavit. 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          12            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  So that would be my 

          13  assumption that it's - they're eligible.   

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Thank you.  And as you 

          15  sit here today, ma'am, have you discovered any information 

          16  to indicate that 50 percent or more of the space leased by 

          17  MWH is outside of the city of Milwaukee? 

          18            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I wouldn’t have that 

          19  information. 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  At some point in the 

          21  procurement process, did you go to the website of MWH as 

          22  part of a, um, effort to determine whether it met the 

          23  criteria for LBE points? 

          24            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No. 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  Did you tell 

                                         Page 176 




           1  somebody that you did that? 

           2            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No. 

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So your conclusion 

           4  was based strictly on what was set forth in that affidavit. 

           5            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Right. 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  And again, the 

           7  affidavit did not designate, nor did it ask, that the party 

           8  designate on an office-by-office basis what square footage 

           9  was being leased in each location, correct? 

          10            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  The property form - there's 

          11  an affidavit for Local Business Enterprise and then there's 

          12  a property form.  The property form does not, did not ask 

          13  for square footage.  The version that's available now does. 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay. 

          15            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  And that is published now; 

          16  the RFP does -  

          17            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So -  

          18            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - ask for square footage. 

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And not to beat a dead 

          20  horse, just to wrap this up, when you said that you had 

          21  concerns about whether the form gave you enough information 

          22  to make a decision about whether LBE points were awardable, 

          23  what was supposed to be on the affidavit that wasn't? 

          24            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  When I, when I'm asking it 

          25  is because as a partner on the proposal, my question was in 

                                         Page 177 




           1  terms of is this acceptable?  It has been asked and 

           2  answered in the past so I'm affirming is this acceptable?  

           3  Because then they should have the 10 points, which would 

           4  increase their total points.  So that was the gist of my 

           5  discussion, along with other aspects of how do we move 

           6  forward here because of other, ah, circumstances 

           7  surrounding this award.   

           8            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I, I know, but I'm still 

           9  trying to understand what gave you pause about the 

          10  affidavit submitted by MWH in terms of like what was 

          11  missing, what was creating confusion on your part about 

          12  whether they get the 10 points or not? 

          13            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No, I didn't have a question 

          14  about giving the 10 points; my question was a larger issue.  

          15  You have the affidavit; that's acceptable in and of itself.  

          16  It's already been asked.  If a partner on a proposal has 

          17  submitted it, the points are available.  So I didn't have a 

          18  question about the LBE. 

          19            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So why didn't we get the 

          20  points then? 

          21            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  After discussing, I'm not 

          22  sure where that came from.  You had one address listed on 

          23  the property form, if I recall correctly.  There was one 

          24  address listed, so that would look like 100 percent instead 

          25  of - so you're meeting the 50 percent and then some 

                                         Page 178 




           1  requirement on the LBE affidavit that says at least 50 

           2  percent of the acreage, I think we used the term acreage - 

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yes. 

           4            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - is there.  So that was not 

           5  my question when I had a discussion with the director.  My 

           6  question was related to the current contract that was in 

           7  place.  If I'm going to award and award these points - LBE 

           8  and SBE - what do we do about the current contract with 

           9  Katten Muchin that was extended in error out to April of 

          10  2018?  So there's another - and I shared that, I shared 

          11  that - with Attorney Block.   

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'm - okay, so was - let 

          13  me -  

          14            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  So this was -  

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - try to unpack that. 

          16            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - a bigger discussion.  It 

          17  wasn't about should they get the LBE or should they not get 

          18  the LBE points.  It was a matter of if I'm going to award 

          19  to them, I need this current contract that was extended out 

          20  to April of 2018 but not requested to be extended out.  And 

          21  like I said, I know in your statement you included, um, a 

          22  reference to the fact that you're not aware of an existing 

          23  contract before this solicitation.  There was - there was a 

          24  contract in place.   

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  For disclosure counsel 

                                         Page 179 




           1  services? 

           2            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  For disclosure and bond 

           3  counsel services combined into one contract. 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  When did that occur? 

           5            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  It was in place when I was 

           6  working on this RFP.  And so when this was awarded, this 

           7  was to replace the current contract that had bond counsel 

           8  and disclosure counsel services on one contract. 

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Do you know if that 

          10  contract that you're referring to was a product of an RFP 

          11  process? 

          12            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Yes, it was. 

          13            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So -  

          14            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  And so my question to the 

          15  director was if I'm going to award to your organization, 

          16  what do I do about this current contract that a colleague 

          17  extended out to April of 2018 in error? 

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  When you say that it 

          19  shouldn’t have been extended to 2018, first of all, can you 

          20  identify the colleague who made that decision? 

          21            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Her name is Arvaya - and 

          22  she's Arvaya, A-r-v-a-y-a. 

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  She's still with the 

          24  city? 

          25            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No.  No.   

                                         Page 180 




           1            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Did she lose her position 

           2  over this error, did she? 

           3            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  [Shakes head] 

           4            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Not to your knowledge. 

           5            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  No. 

           6            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  And why did she - why was 

           7  she in error in, um, I guess, signing off on this 

           8  extension? 

           9            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  That was part of my 

          10  discussion.  Director Kelsey, "Here, I am ready to award 

          11  this contract.  It was published that the effective date of 

          12  this RFP would have been, what, July of 2017?  How am I 

          13  going to award this to be effective July, August 2017 when 

          14  the current contract, B10504, has already been extended out 

          15  to April of 2018?"  How did that happen?  The comptroller's 

          16  office did not ask for that extension so, like I said, this 

          17  was part of a bigger conversation.  I need - 

          18            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  What was the -  

          19            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - the director -  

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  What was the contract 

          21  number that was extended improperly? 

          22            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  B10504. 

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  B105 -  

          24            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  And I shared that with 

          25  Attorney Block. 

                                         Page 181 




           1            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Mr. Chairman, ah, I'm not 

           2  sure that this conversation is getting us any closer to the 

           3  conclusion of this case.  Whether or not there was an 

           4  overlapping contract really doesn't move us forward on this 

           5  specific issue. 

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well -  

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Mr. Chair, may I? 

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Hoeschen? 

           9            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ms. Jeffries, are you 

          10  suggesting that the LBE points were declined in order to 

          11  fix an error of extending a contract? 

          12            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  Like I - for me, as the 

          13  procurement specialist, I take the entire situation to the 

          14  director for direction.  What do I do?  Even if I award to 

          15  this vendor, we have this contract that's been extended out 

          16  until April of 2018 -  

          17            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And it was after that -  

          18            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - and - 

          19            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - conversation that you were 

          20  instructed to deduct the LBE points? 

          21            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  I was instructed - yes.  I 

          22  don't do that on my own; go in and take away points.  It 

          23  was part of a larger discussion; that's what I've been 

          24  saying.  It's part of -  

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Can, can I ask that we 

                                         Page 182 




           1  adjourn -  

           2            MS. KAREN JEFFRIES:  - a larger discussion. 

           3            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - um, briefly, for five 

           4  minutes?  I'd like to confer with the city. 

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, I, I just - I, I 

           6  don't have a problem with that.  It's just that I have one 

           7  question.  Even with the 10 points, they're close -  

           8            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  No. 

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - but somebody's still 

          10  above them. 

          11            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  No, they're over.  No, 

          12  they're eight points behind.   

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Oh. 

          14            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  They go to 107.4 and the 

          15  winner had 105.6. 

          16            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay.  We'll have an 

          17  adjournment for five or 10 minutes.   

          18            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I'm -  

          19            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Back on the record. 

          20            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  And 

          21  obviously, I'd like to say something if, if I may? 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Oh, absolutely.   

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Um, I, you 

          24  know, obviously, I think something was implied by the 

          25  witness.  I'm very concerned about the implications that 

                                         Page 183 




           1  statement had for a witness who has already testified, um, 

           2  and her character, um, if not actual possible unethical and 

           3  criminal conduct that was alleged.  Um, I think that the 

           4  best - frankly, I'm a little concerned about how to proceed 

           5  at this point without talking to my supervisors to make 

           6  sure everyone's, um, rights are adequately, um, protected.  

           7  Um, and I think that, ah, Mr. Harlan has very, um, 

           8  generously, um, offered to, ah, potentially adjourn, um, 

           9  the proceedings today and if that's an amenable way to, ah, 

          10  approach the, ah, ah, rest of the day, I would, ah, 

          11  certainly appreciate the board's, um, ah, allowance of that 

          12  way to proceed. 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, I will tell you 

          14  that it was my opinion before we even had a discussion that 

          15  an adjournment was in order.  And I know that Mr. 

          16  Hoeschen's [inaudible], "Well, shouldn't we let this 

          17  witness, this witness finish?" I, I think we should 

          18  adjourn.  I think, um, I don't know if I see all the stuff 

          19  that you just mentioned but I think an adjournment's in 

          20  order.  So, I'll entertain a motion -  

          21            MR. AVERILL:  Mr. Chair?  I make a motion that we 

          22  adjourn and hold this matter at the, ah, convenience of the 

          23  chair. 

          24            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay.  I have a motion 

          25  by Mr. Averill to adjourn.  Do I have a second? 

                                         Page 184 




           1            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Second. 

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Any objection?  So 

           3  ordered.  Ah, we're going to schedule a date though.  So 

           4  we're going to schedule a date that we would come back.  

           5  Ah, so I guess I'm open to how much time.  I will tell you 

           6  the third week in May I'm going to be out of town.  Ah, so, 

           7  ah -  

           8            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  I'm going to be gone from 

           9  the 16th on, so -  

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay.  How much time do 

          11  you think you need? 

          12            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Ah -  

          13            UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER:  Is that next week or June? 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I think probably two or 

          15  three hours, um -  

          16            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  No, no -  

          17            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  No, no.   

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  How much time -  

          19            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Laughter] 

          20            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  No -  

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  A week. 

          22            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  We're going to get a 

          23  different day -  

          24            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Can we, can we do it next 

          25  week? 

                                         Page 185 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Can you do next week? 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Well, one issue - and I 

           3  leave it to you all's discretion - I mean, so do we have 

           4  some members who are not present? 

           5            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Ah, Mister - ah, Chevy 

           6  Johnson is the only one cause the twins.  So -  

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And he won't -  

           8            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  He won't -  

           9            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - be here the next meeting 

          10  either. 

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  - be here.  He won't be 

          12  here at the next meeting. 

          13            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  No. 

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  It's just going to be 

          15  us.   

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Okay.  So what, what, 

          17  what day are you contemplating? 

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  We're asking you.  Can you do 

          19  it next week? 

          20            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um -  

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I'm available the 10th 

          22  and 11th -  

          23            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I don't think that's 

          24  going to allow me enough time to resolve our issues, so I 

          25  don't think next week - 

                                         Page 186 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay. 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - makes sense. 

           3            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Beginning of June? 

           4            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay. 

           5            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  That, that's fine. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.   

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  How does June 4th look? 

           8            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  Um, I'm not back until the, 

           9  ah, eighth.   

          10            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Oh.  Could we do the 8th 

          11  in the afternoon? 

          12            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  No. 

          13            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Ah, no, I can't do on the 8th 

          14  in the afternoon.   

          15            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You want to do it on the 

          16  13th at our [inaudible] board meeting and you shuffle 

          17  around that?  

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I -  

          19            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Linda? 

          20            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I don't think that's a good - 

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  [Laughter] 

          22            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Right now we don't have May 

          23  appeals. 

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Yeah, but I don't think 

          25  that's a good idea. 

                                         Page 187 




           1            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Okay.   

           2            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, I was thinking 

           3  about -  

           4            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Well, you said you were gone 

           5  the third week of May, is that right? 

           6            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes. 

           7            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  And you're gone from the 6th 

           8  to the 8th - ah, 16th, ah Steve, to the eighth? 

           9            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  I'm gone from the 16th to 

          10  the seventh. 

          11            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Alright. 

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I was thinking about 

          13  using the 13th for this and then doing the stuff on the 

          14  13th at a different date. 

          15            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  But it's already been - 

          16  Linda, has it been published?  

          17            MS. LINDA ELMER:  No. 

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  That date? 

          19            MS. LINDA ELMER:  I haven't -  

          20            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  No? 

          21            MS. LINDA ELMER:  I just emailed our staff but -  

          22            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I, I'm having trouble 

          23  with -  

          24            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Oh, okay. 

          25            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  - on my end. 

                                         Page 188 




           1            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Oh, reception? 

           2            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Can I -  

           3            MS. LINDA ELMER:  [Inaudible] 

           4            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  You need to get a paper 

           5  calendar. 

           6            ALL:  [Laughter] 

           7            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  How are you ever going 

           8  to schedule something when there's -  

           9            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Talking about old school, 

          10  man. 

          11            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, how are you going 

          12  to schedule something when there's metal on the roof and 

          13  stuff?  You can't break it.   

          14            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  What? 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'll, I'll [inaudible]. 

          16            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Well, haven't you been 

          17  in places where the stuff doesn't work? 

          18            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  No, your calendar isn't 

          19  connected to - my calendar's in my phone.  I don't need the 

          20  network -  

          21            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Oh. 

          22            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - for my calendar. 

          23            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Oh, you don't need the 

          24  network?   

          25            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Yeah. 

                                         Page 189 




           1            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  I don't do that; I'm a 

           2  dinosaur. 

           3            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  I mean, there's the bigger 

           4  issue. 

           5            ALL:  [Laughter] 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Just hope 

           7  [laughter].  I hope I'm free?  I vaguely know when I'll be 

           8  gone.   

           9            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Well, the 13th we already 

          10  have on the calendar so can you do the thirteenth? 

          11            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I'm sorry, I'm checking 

          12  if -  

          13            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Okay.   

          14            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  The thirteenth - 

          15            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  You with me?  I'm having 

          16  some technical problems. 

          17            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Put it in.  

          18            MR. AVERILL:  Do you remember last month 

          19  [inaudible] -  

          20            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Yeah, we contacted him -  

          21            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  So, um -  

          22            MS. LINDA ELMER:  He had no -  

          23            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  What [inaudible]? 

          24            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  I have a deposition that 

          25  day [inaudible]. 

                                         Page 190 




           1            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah, 

           2  Rhonda will have to be at Finance and Personnel at 9:00 on 

           3  the thirteenth. 

           4            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay.   

           5            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  But she's finished but if you 

           6  want her here -  

           7            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Well, I may 

           8  need her here - 

           9            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  - we could schedule -  

          10            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  - for 

          11  rebuttal. 

          12            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Right. 

          13            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  How's the 18th looking? 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Eighteenth of June? 

          15            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes. 

          16            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Um, I - I have, I have a 

          17  trial the following week but as of now, I could make that 

          18  work. 

          19            MR. STEVE FRITSCHE:  I can make that work. 

          20            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Okay.  [Inaudible], too? 

          21            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  I assume 

          22  that's a Monday? 

          23            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Yes. 

          24            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yeah?  At 

          25  9:00 a.m.? 

                                         Page 191 




           1            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  Nine a.m.? 

           2            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes. 

           3            MR. BRAD HOESCHEN:  That'd be fine. 

           4            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yeah, make it 9:00 a.m. 

           5            MS. LINDA ELMER:  June 18th, 9:00 a.m. 

           6            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Did you get 

           7  that date? 

           8            UNKNOWN FEMALE SPEAKER:  Yes.   

           9            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  And if it does get 

          10  resolved, you can always let us know. 

          11            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Yes.  Okay.   

          12            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Mr. Harlan, is that 

          13  alright?  The 18th at 9:00 a.m.? 

          14            ATTORNEY EMERY HARLAN:  Yes, sir.  Yes, sir. 

          15            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Okay.   

          16            MS. LINDA ELMER:  So the June 13th date and then 

          17  June -  

          18            CHAIRMAN VINCENT BOBOT:  Yes. 

          19            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Okay.   

          20            MR. AVERILL:  And yes, we made the motion to 

          21  adjourn so -  

          22            MS. LINDA ELMER:  Yep. 

          23            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Good. 

          24            MR. AVERILL:  - we're done.  Thank you, everyone. 

          25            ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KATHY BLOCK:  Thank you.   

                                         Page 192 




           1  Certification 

           2  I, Adrea Knoll, an experienced transcriber, did transcribe 

           3  the attached proceedings. 

           4  The attached is an original and verbatim transcription of 

           5  the said proceedings, within the limits of the quality of 

           6  the recording, containing the full text of the recording.  

           7  I further certify that I am neither a party to this case 

           8  nor a relative or employee of any party to this case.  I 

           9  was not present at the recording sessions and have no way 

          10  of personally guaranteeing the accuracy of the recordings. 

          11   

          12             

          13                                           

          14                                          By:  Adrea Knoll 

          15   

          16             

          17             

          18             

          19             

          20             

          21             

          22   

          23             

          24    

          25   

                                         Page 193 