Orange County Voices : COMMENTARY ON GOVERNMENT : Take Lobbyists Out of the County Contract Bidding Process : Their chumminess with supervisors is not in the public’s best interest and creates a skewed procurement system.

The Orange County bankruptcy has uncovered a number of previously undisclosed deficiencies in county government. However, one serious flaw in county government was known even before Dec. 6, 1994. This is the excessive influence lobbyists have on the awarding of major county contracts.

Since 1984, the Board of Supervisors has awarded more than nine major design or construction contracts to architectural and engineering firms. These contracts ranged in value from $1 million for Gypsum Jail to $17 million for renovation of John Wayne Airport. Without exception, the winning bidders had hired lobbyists to assist them in getting the contracts.

The county’s system for awarding publicly funded contracts has recently come under criticism from a variety of sources, including the Orange County Grand Jury, the county’s Privatization Task Force and a consortium of professional societies. Each of these groups has concluded that the current system needs to be changed to minimize or eliminate the influence of lobbying on the selection of private firms for public work. This issue has taken on greater importance due to the likelihood of more contract awards as part of the county’s privatization efforts.

The current system for major contract selection is an anachronism whose only defenders are the Board of Supervisors and the lobbyists who profit from this skewed process. Currently, when the county issues a Request for Proposal, qualified firms submit proposals for review by a county technical reviewing committee. This committee evaluates the proposals and ranks them; the top three proposals are forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final selection. However, board policy dictates that these top three firms be forwarded to them without any ranking. Supposedly this allows latitude in making the final selection. It also prevents public criticism or inquiry if the most qualified firm is not selected.

Why does the board have to conduct further evaluation when the technical reviewing committee has already reviewed and ranked the proposals? Further, what kind of evaluation can the board conduct, since the board has little or no technical expertise?

While innocent intentions may have led to creating this process, it has devolved into an exercise that benefits only lobbyists and penalizes taxpayers and bidders. At present, following the selection of the top three firms, the lobbyists pounce on the bidders offering their only real talent--entry to a supervisor. Bidders, now familiar with the game and the price to be paid for playing it, hire a lobbyist to arrange for private presentations to the individual supervisors. Thus, the final selection is made behind closed doors. Nowhere in the selection process does the board have to justify its selection, nor does it have to divulge the influence the lobbyist exercised in selecting the winner.

The lobbyists claim they provide an essential service to the architects and engineers by assisting in “marketing” their proposals to the board. If this service were as essential as the lobbyists claim, then why have all the professional societies requested the procurement system be changed to specifically prohibit lobbying for government contracts?

Over the past five years, these professional architectural, engineering and consulting societies repeatedly have asked the board to revise the procurement system to eliminate the intervention of lobbyists, and to base selection on technical merits and performance criteria. But the board consistently has denied these requests. Not surprisingly, the result is a county with a widespread reputation that “you cannot get a contract with Orange County unless you hire a lobbyist.” This reputation is backed up by the fact that in the past 10 years no contract over $1 million has been awarded without the use of a lobbyist.

The one reason, besides habit, that the supervisors stubbornly refuse to get the lobbyists out of the procurement system is the close relationship and reliance that exists between the board and the lobbyists. Most of the lobbyists once worked as aides to supervisors, and a couple actually are former supervisors.

The lobbyists not only have a shared work experience with the supervisors and their aides, but are often good friends. This relationship is cultivated by the lobbyist for the benefit of the lobbyist. The supervisors benefit because the lobbyists raise campaign contributions from their clientele and arrange fund-raising events for them.

The loser in this procurement system is the public. The cost of the project is increased because the winning firm passes on the lobbyist’s cost through the county contract, and, worse, the best firm might not be chosen.

The other losers in this system are the dozens of firms that are forced to hire lobbyists if they wish to be viable contenders.

Many firms simply have refused to go against their professional code of ethics (which prohibits the use of lobbyists for obtaining government contracts) and will not bid on county work, but seek business in other jurisdictions.

The county grand jury recently has recommended that the procurement system be changed to require that bidders disclose the names of lobbyists and how much they paid them to get the job.

The Privatization Task Force report and the consortium of seven professional societies recommend depoliticizing the entire procurement process by eliminating any lobbying once the proposals have been submitted to the county. This recommendation is consistent with the procedures mandated by the federal and state governments and most municipal agencies.

Every independent group that has looked at this issue, and all the professional societies representing firms that bid for county contracts, have come to the same conclusion: Lobbyist influence must be reduced or eliminated. The board members should change their business-as-usual attitude and not let their friendships with the lobbyists interfere with their responsibility to the taxpayers to assure that public funds are not used for, or tainted by, lobbyist influence.