Sunday, May 27, 2018
1900 Kanawha Boulevard,
East Charleston, WV 25305
Phone: (304) 558-4331
Fax: (304) 558-2999
Office hours:
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.




Board of Directors’ Meeting

October 20, 2011

Members Present: Marc Monteleone, Chairman
                                Roy Smith
                                Woody Thrasher 
                                Rod Clay
Department of
     Donna Lipscomb

Others Present:     Micheal Evans, Department of Administration
                                Lloyd Miller, Lloyd W. Miller Architect PLLC
                                Ronald May, Marshall University
                                Jim Terry, Marshall University
                                David Bruffy, Mountain Line Transit Authority

Members Absent: Ron Spradling
                                Mary Jo Klempa



The meeting was called to order and a silent roll call was taken and it was determined that a quorum was present.

Approval of Minutes:

Woody Thrasher moved for the approval of minutes of the September 15, 2011, meeting. Motion seconded by Rod Clay. All voted in favor and the motion passed and the minutes were approved.

New Business:

Presentation by Monongalia County Urban Mass Transit Authority

Lloyd Miller, Criteria Developer, advised the board that the Monongalia County Urban Mass Transit Authority technical review committee met on October 12, 2011. Micheal Evans represented the Department of Administration. At that time they reviewed the responses to the request for proposals for the solar power plant project. They received three proposals. The proposals were provided in separate sealed envelopes. The cost scores remain sealed and secure.

Proposals were received from MTV Solar, G.A. Brown and March-Weston. A Qualitative Proposal Score Sheet was provided. MTV solar scored 89, G.A. Brown scored 70, and March-Weston scored 80. Mr. Miller requested the authority to proceed with the opening of the cost scores for the project.

Chairman Monteleone questioned Micheal Evans, the Department of Administration’s representative on behalf of the board, if the process was conducted appropriately. Mr. Evans advised that the only abnormality with the process was that the proposals were distributed to the technical review committee members in advance of the meeting. Chairman Monteleone questioned Mr. Miller what was done. Mr. Miller indicated that the proposals were distributed prior to the meeting. He stated that this needed to be done so members would have ample opportunity to review them in detail prior to scoring. Additionally, it gives him the ability to provide technical input to the members regarding the proposals.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding the need to keep the proposals secure prior to review. Ms. Lipscomb expressed concerns that the members could talk to one another and have a predetermined team they liked best and get together and score the technical responses in a fashion that their favorite could win. Although they wouldn’t know the costs, if the costs were close and the technical scores weren’t it could determine the winner. Mr. Thrasher agreed with Ms. Lipscomb and stated that he understood the need for a through review but he believes there is a way that a through review could be done at the time the technical review committee evaluates the proposals. He further indicated that Ms. Lipscomb’s concerns are legitimate and it must have a complete appearance of fairness.

Ms. Lipscomb stated that Micheal Evans and herself have the responsibility to oversee the process and advise the board as to whether it was followed correctly. She would like some guidance on this issue. Mr. Miller stated that the smaller projects would be fine to review during the evaluation but some of the larger ones take him ten to twelve hours to go through. Mr. Bruffy stated that it is hard to find people willing to commit time to be on the technical review committee and it would be harder if they had to spend an entire day evaluating a proposal. Roy Smith stated that he feels the same way that Ms. Lipscomb and Mr. Evans feel. They feel a little funny about it because they are reporting back to the board and he feels a little funny about it because he is responsible to the public to assure this process is open and fair. Mr. Smith further indicated that they are circumventing the public bidding laws through this process and the board has an obligation to assure the public they are maintaining the integrity of the process. Mr. Smith indicated that he knows a lot of the contractors that bid on these projects and if he was able to review what was inside the packet ahead of time what would prohibit him from contacting any of them to discuss them. This is not the right thing to do and he believes everything should be contained. Mr. Smith advised that the board has had many discussions regarding the cost proposals and this is the same thing. Chairman Monteleone advised that there have been violations in opening the costs.

Mr. Smith stated that he sympathizes with Mr. Bruffy that it may be hard to get people to be on the evaluation committees. This does not influence what he thinks. Mr. Smith indicated that he is taking his time to come to this committee and he will be here for however long it takes. The people who are on the evaluation committee should be told up front what type of time commitment it will take and if they can’t make the commitment they should decline to serve. Mr. Smith does not like the proposals being out and people having the opportunity to do anything.

Chairman Monteleone advised Mr. Miller that going forward he is to stop what he is doing and not open anything until the evaluation team is there ready to evaluate. Do not do that anymore. He stated that they need to get the right committee members in there and he doesn’t care if it takes one day or twenty days to evaluate. They must remain sealed.

Chairman Monteleone requested Mr. Miller to provide Ms. Lipscomb with an Affidavit signed by each member of the technical review committee stating that they did not talk to anyone about the proposal and did not share it or any information with anyone. The Affidavit must state that the committee member kept the responses confidential.

Roy Smith made a motion to allow the project to move forward. Motion seconded by Rod Clay. Motion passed.

Presentation by Marshall University

Lloyd Miller advised that Marshall University received nine responses to the request for qualifications for the parking garage project. The technical review committee evaluated the responses. Ms. Lipscomb represented the Department of Administration during the evaluation. Responses were received from BBL Carlton, Carl Walker Construction, Donely’s, Mascaro, MIRC, Neighborgall, P.J. Dick, TB Penick and Turner. The score sheets were provided to the board. During the scoring, five teams were selected to be short-listed and will be invited to proceed with the RFP process. They are BBL Carlton, Mascara, Carl Walker Construction, Donely’s and Neighborgall. Mr. Miller requested the board’s approval to proceed with the project.

Ms. Lipscomb advised the board that one of the technical review committee members messed up on her score sheet and put the wrong numbers on her individual scores. She requested Mr. Miller to explain what happened to the board. Mr. Miller stated that on two categories, the miscellaneous and the added value, Ms. O’Lynn didn’t put the correct maximum for these categories. He explained the mix up and provided a handout to the board to demonstrate. The error by Ms. O’Lynn does not change the outcome of the top five teams.

Chairman Monteleone questioned Ms. Lipscomb as to whether the process was followed. Ms. Lipscomb indicated that the responses were already review and scored by the individual members of the technical review committee prior to the evaluation team meeting. However, she also indicated that she had some comfort level because it was clear to her that the individual members and reviewed the proposals as they were knowledgeable of their contents. Additionally, clearly some of the proposals were better. Chairman Monteleone advised the board that these scores go away and only decided the best teams. They will have no bearing on the scoring for the request for proposal and costs.

Roy Smith made a motion to allow the Marshall University project to proceed to the next step. Motion seconded by Woody Thrasher. Motion passed.

Old Business:
There was no old business to come before the board.


Other Business:

Ronald May, with Marshall University, questioned the board regarding their procedures going forward. Chairman Monteleone stated that they are to get the proposals and stamp them received and not open them until the technical review committee meets to score them. Lloyd Miller questioned how he would get the information to his consultants. Chairman Monteleone stated that their presence at the meeting is preferable but if not feasible then they must sign an affidavit stating they will keep them confidential.


Lloyd Miller advised the board that he is doing a presentation at the Expo next March talking about design-build. He invited the board to attend and welcomed them to speak as well. Mr. Miller is going to provide the information regarding this to Ms. Lipscomb so she can distribute it to the board.