Questions Mire County Office Plans : Expansion: Developers seeking to build a new court-office complex complain that the selection process has been unfair.

A multimillion-dollar project to build new courts and county offices in downtown San Diego has become mired in controversy for the second time in less than a year after developers complained that the selection process was unfair.

The project already has been delayed two weeks so the County Board of Supervisors can consider the latest complaints at a public hearing next month. If supervisors decide selection was improper, the competition will be reopened, delaying the project another six months, officials said.

“There is some confusion even on the board as to whether the (selection committee) was following the parameters they were set up to follow,” George Bailey, chairman of the Board of Supervisors, said. “I’m not sure whether the rules were followed or not. If they were followed, fine. If not, we’ll have to go back.”

The dispute involves a board decision last November that sought to increase competition for the $50-million to $80-million project--which includes 16 new courtrooms. Because the county wanted the new space close to the downtown courthouse, it opened the bidding only to those developers who already owned property within a three-block radius. The November decision extended the radius to five blocks, which allowed five more developers to compete.

Two weeks ago, a seven-member screening committee, consisting of three developers, a bank president, a city planner, a city manager and the executive vice president of the city’s redevelopment agency, selected two of the developers as primary choices and placed four more in a backup category, to negotiate with if the first two fell through.

The county sent letters to the seven that did not make the top two slots, telling them that their proposals “did not offer significant financial incentives/opportunities” to offset “concerns associated with being too distant from the courthouse.”

Two developers objected. Starboard Development Corp., which made the secondary group of four, made a public records request demanding to know how the screening committee made its decision. The request was denied because the selection is not final, county attorneys said.

A second developer, a joint venture under the name Kajima that was eliminated, questioned why it was so “readily . . . discarded” when it already has a vacant building it could use.

The county staff was to meet with the top two developers Monday to begin submitting budgets and more detailed plans. Both developers are across the street from the courthouse, the closest of the nine proposals.

The selection committee worked for months before it came to its decision and considered a variety of factors, only one of which was location, Rene Cardinaux, deputy director of the county’s General Services Department, said.

“There have been complaints voiced that perhaps the selection was narrowed down too quickly,” Cardinaux said. “But, in narrowing the field, we were hoping to save the developers money. It costs a lot to keep going with this process.”

County supervisors said they want a full report on what happened.

“The board has not eliminated anybody,” Supervisor Leon Williams said. “The only selection committee is the one answerable to the people of San Diego County. That’s the Board of Supervisors. There is no selection until the board decides.”

Supervisor Brian Bilbray said the board wanted “as broad a search area as possible” and believes that staff members may have “wandered off from our directed policy.” Bilbray said he specifically wants to know why the number of developers was narrowed from nine to two.

“I want to know who made that decision and why,” Bilbray said. “If there’s a good explanation, fine. We’ll move on.”

The 295,396-square-foot project consists of 16 courtrooms for civil trials and new offices for the district attorney, the county marshal, the county Probation Department, the grand jury and a citizen review board that oversees the Sheriff’s Department.

The county is interested in expanding to 449,380 square feet by the year 2010.

Construction is to cost $50 million to $80 million--more precise numbers will be developed as final proposals are made--and will will be paid for from a variety of sources, including the money that will be saved on existing leases, city redevelopment funds and other areas. The building was to be completed by 1995.

The County Courthouse on West Broadway, with 60 courtrooms, is old, cramped and plagued by rats, bugs, sewage leaks and asbestos problems. Eight courtrooms have been moved to the Home Savings Tower, also on Broadway.

Supervisor Bailey said he hopes that the project will not be delayed any further.

“We’re not looking to pick a fight with anyone,” he said. “We just need to clear up some of the confusion and make sure we’re doing the right thing.”