2014 July MSI Soccer Public Comment to Montgomery County Council

8/12/2019 2014 July MSI Soccer Public Comment to Montgomery County Council

1/11

MONTGOMERY SOCCER INC7650 Standish Place, #108Rockville, Maryland 20855

July 22, 2014

County Council for Montgomery CountyStella B. Werner Council Office Building100 Maryland Avenue, thFloorRockville, Maryland 20850Re: Supplemental Appropriation to MCPS' FY15 CapitalBudget and Amendment to FY15-20 CapitalImprovements Program - Winston Churchill High SchoolArtificial Turf

Dear President Rice and Councilmembers:

MSI is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the opportunity to playorganized soccer to all youth in Montgomery County regardless of their playing ability,family income, or even their physical or developmental limitations. As part of its mission,MSI has for the past several years sought the development of high-quality and safe fields onwhich its members can play and it has sought to secure playing time for its members on suchfields. The Board of Education of Montgomery County controls a,ccessto certain highschool soccer fields and it has,~ol@laflawed ana unlawfulprocessf awarded use of twostadium fields - Richard Montgomery High School and Winston Churchill High School - toelite clubs that serve only a limited fraction- the wealthiest- of the County's youth. As aconsequence, MSI has instituted an appeal to the State Board of Education and filed a lawsuit


2/11

The following factual background details the flawed process that has compelled MSIto institute its appeal to the State Board of Education and file its lawsuit.

Factual Background)The Board of Education has adopted Board of Education Policy CNE, FacilityImprovements That Are Not Funded with Montgomery County Revenues to provideguidelines for accepting non-Montgomery County government funds for non-school use ofpublic school facilities, including high school stadium fields. Attachment A. A corepurpose of this policy is to ensure that income inequality is not reflected or exacerbated in theBoard's decisions with respect to acceptance of non-governmental funds. That policyprovides, inter alia, that the superintendent of schools will establish administrativeregulations or other administrative procedures necessary for implementing the guidelines ofthe Board's policy.

Pursuant to the Board of Education Policy CNE, Facility Improvements ThatAre NotFunded with Montgomery County Revenues on January 3, 2014, MCPS, under the directionof the Superintendent of Schools, issued Requests for Proposal ( RFP ) for partners toenter into Stadium Field Use Agreements for the non-school use of the stadium fields atGaithersburg High School, Richard Montgomery High School, and Winston Churchill HighSchool. Attachment B

MSI responded to each RFP, submitting proposals to enter into a Stadium Field UseAgreement for each of the aforesaid high school stadium fields.

Richard Montgomery High School stadium field)The RFP for a partner for the non-school use of the Richard Montgomery stadium

field (the Richard Montgomery RFP ) contained an administrative regulation or procedurewhich consisted of a Scoring Criteria by which the partner for the shared use of theRichard Montgomery stadium field would be selected based upon using a point system with100 points total as the maximum possible score pursuant to whicla a Stadium Field UseAgreement would be executed by the selected partner and MCPS. That point systemprovided as follows:2


3/11

Part A Qualifications of Applicantpoints 20Name of applicant(s), individual(s), or organization, mailingaddress, phone and fax numbers, and contact person with e-mailaddress. Applicants should include a history of the organization.Applicants are required to provide two (2) references, one 1professional and the other may be the parent of a player who canexplain the benefits of the Organization's athletic program.References shall include the company name, contact person,address and phone number.

PartB Program Planpoints 30Include the vision, mission statement, and philosophy of theathletic program. Describe any special program features.Describe any community benefits. Provide the proposedschedule of use, total number of annual hours requested, andnumber of years.

PartC Personnelpoints

10

Describe the personnel who will be the leaders in the use andoperations of the field and ancillary facilities.

PartD Financialpoints 40Describe the financial offer to install the artificial turf inexchange for the proposed schedule of use. Provide one (1)financial reference from a banking or lending institution.

TOTAL POINTS 100points

Pursuant to the Richard Montgomery RFP, the partner that would be selected toenter into a Stadium Field Use Agreement with MCPS for the non-school use of the RichardMontgomery High School stadium field would be the applicant that had the highest totalpoints based upon the criteria enumerated in the Scoring Criteria.3


4/11

MSI submitted a timely submission to enter into a Stadium Field Use Agreement forthe non-school use of the Richard Montgomery High School stadium field, addressing eachsection of the Richard Montgomery RFP, particularly the Program Plan section whichincluded its county-wide services.

MSI became aware that other organizations had also submitted proposals for the non-chool use of the Richard Montgomery stadium field, but applying the Point System in theRichard Montgomery RFP MSI should have been awarded the most points because, at theleast, its submission had the most extensive Program Plan section with county-wide specialprogram features and community benefits and its Financial offer was comparable with theother applicants with far stronger and more credible financial security to insure complete andtimely performance with the schedule of required payments.

Pursuant to the administrative regulation or procedure in the Richard MontgomeryRFP, the submissions for the non-school use of the Richard Montgomery High Schoolstadium field were to be scored by a selection committee from Richard Montgomery HighSchool and staff of the Department of Facilities Management, a component of MCPS, usingthe sections of the Scoring Criteria and its point system in the Richard Montgomery RFP.Two members of the MCPS staff within the Department of Facilities Management whoparticipated in scoring the submissions were Peter J. Geiling, Real Estate Management TeamLeader, and James Song, Director of the Department.

4


5/11

Notwithstanding the representation of Team Leader Geiling that MSI would beawarded the Stadium Field Use Agreement for the Richard Montgomery High Schoolstadium field, on April 8, 2014, MSI was informed that the selection committeerecommended that the Bethesda Soccer Club be awarded the Stadium Field UseAgreement for the non-school use of the Richard Montgomery High School stadium field.The selection committee did not disclose its scores for the RFP's Scoring Criteria , and didnot consider, employ, nor use the Point System in the Richard Montgomery RFP inreviewing and evaluating the submissions for the non-school use of the Richard MontgomeryHigh School stadium field and in making its selection. The Bethesda Soccer Club serves alimited community consisting primarily of the wealthiest families in Montgomery County.Its Program Plan was not comparable to the MSI county-wide program. Its financial offerwas $1,040,000.00 which was only $40,000.00 more than MSI, but its financial strength andcredibility to perform was not as strong as MSI's.MCBOE was scheduled to consider the submissions for the Stadium Field UseAgreements for the three high schools at its meeting of(Aj?fil2:9 2 14l Prior to that meetingSrfilea}i-prota about the selection of the Bethesda Soccer Club for the RichardMontgomery High School stadium field. Thereafter, the MCBOE consideration of the threeStadium Field Use Agreement awards wer[Wlih


6/11

information as to the scoring of submissions under the Scoring Criteria of the RichardMontgomery RFP was disclosed.

Based upon the selection committee's selection, the superintendent of schools, JoshuaStarr, recommended that the Board of Education award the Stadium Field Use Agreement forthe non-school use of the Richard Montgomery High School stadium field to the BethesdaSoccer Club. Attachment C. In making that recommendation the superintendent also didnot disclose the scoring of submissions under the RFP Scoring Criteria and failed to consider,employ, and use the Point System delineated in the RFP. At no time did the superintendentor any of his staff disclose the score results of the Scoring Criteria for the submissions forthe Richard Montgomery High School stadium field.

e tsoaidofEaucatiOriilla not engage in any consiaerafion, or evaluation;-or mesubmissions for the Stadium FiekL_Use-A.gi:eement-for-the~s.tadium..field..o~ ..-i-,f ontgomeryBlg:h.Schood Rather, Board accepted the recommendation of thesuperintendent in awarding the Stadium Field Use Agreement for the non-school use of theRichard Montgomery High School stadium field to the Bethesda Soccer Club pursuant to aResolution adopted on June 3, 2014. Attachment D It, too, failed to disclose the scoring ofthe submissions under the Scoring Criteria of the Richard Montgomery RFP and did notconsider, employ, and use the Point System delineated in the Richard Montgomery RFP.In awarding the Stadium Field Use Agreement for the non-school use of the RichardMontgomery High School stadium field the Board failed to consider, employ, and use theadministrative regulations or procedure delineated in, and required by, the RichardMontgomery RFP. It also never disclosed the results of the points awarded to eachsubmission under the Scoring Criteria of the Richard Montgomery RFP. lilrroT,,_h-at-:---ac-:-t~io_n.

egally .impermissible..aru:Lunl~ lWinston Churchill High School stadium field)

The RFP for a partner for the non-school use of the Winston Churchill High Schoolstadium field (the Churchill RFP ) contained the same administrative regulation orprocedure as the Richard Montgomery RFP which consisted of a Scoring Criteria by whichthe partner for the shared use of the Winston Churchill High School stadium field would beselected based upon using a point system with 100 points total as'the maximum possiblescore pursuant to which a Stadium Field Use Agreement would be executed by the selectedpartner and MCPS. Attachment E. That point system provided as follows:Part Qualifications of Applicantpoints 2

Name of applicant(s), individual(s), or organization, mailingaddress, phone and fax numbers, and contact person with e-mail6


7/11

address. Applicants should include a history of the organization.Applicants are required to provide two (2) references, one (1)professional and the other may be the parent of a player who canexplain the benefits of the Organization's athletic program.References shall include the company name, contact person,address and phone number.

Part Program Planpoints 30Include the vision, mission statement, and philosophy of theathletic program. Describe any special program features.Describe any community benefits. Provide the proposedschedule of use, total number of annual hours requested, andnumber of years.

Part C Personnelpoints 10Describe the personnel who will be the leaders in the use andoperations of the field and ancillary facilities.

PartD Financialpoints 40

Describe the financial offer to install the artificial turf inexchange for the proposed schedule of use. Provide one (I)financial reference from a banking or lending institution.TOTAL POINTS 100points

Pursuant to the Churchill RFP the partner that would be selected to enter into aStadium Field Use Agreement with MCPS for the non-school use of the Churchill HighSchool stadium field would be the applicant that had the highest total points based upon thecriteria enumerated in the Scoring Criteria.MSI submitted a timely submission to enter into an agreement for the non-school useof the Churchill High School stadium field, addressing each section of the Churchill RFP,particularly the Program Plan section which included its county-wide services.MSI became aware that other organizations had also submitted proposals for the non-

7


8/11

school use of the Churchill stadium field, but applying the Point System in the ChurchillRFP, particularly the Program Plan section, MSI would be awarded the most points because,at the least, its submission had the most extensive Program Plan section with special programfeatures and community benefits. In addition, its Financial section was favorable ascompared with the other submissions, particularly its ability to insure completion and timelyperformance of required payments.

Pursuant to the administrative regulation or procedure in the Churchill RFP, thesubmissions for the non-school use of the Winston Churchill High School stadium fieldwould be scored using the Scoring Criteria in the Churchill RFP by a selection committeefrom ICB, Winston Churchill High School, and staff of the Department of FacilitiesManagement, a component of MCPS, using the point system. Two members of the MCPSstaff within the Department of Facilities Management who participated in the scoring thesubmissions were Peter J. Geiling, Real Estate Management Team Leader, and James Song,the Director of the Department.

The selection committee recommended that the Bethesda Lacrosse/Potomac SoccerAssociation be awarded the Stadium Field Agreement for the non-school use of the WinstonChurchill High School stadium field. The entity Bethesda Lacrosse/Potomac SoccerAssociation is understood to actually be two Maryland corporations, Bethesda LacrosseAssociation, Incorporated, and Potomac Soccer Association, Inc. The selection committeedid not disclose its scoring of the submission as required by the Churchill RFP and did notconsider, employ, nor use the Point System in the Churchill RFP in reviewing andevaluating the submission for the non-school use of the Churchill High School stadium fieldand in making its selection.

Based upon the selection committee's selection, the superintendent of schools, JoshuaStarr, recommended to the Board that it award the Stadium Field Use Agreement for the nonschool use of the Churchill High School stadium field to Bethesda Lacrosse/Potomac SoccerAssociation, and, in ddition the Winston Churchill High School Booster Club.

8


9/11

Attachment F The Superintendent reported that the Winston Churchill High SchoolBooster Club had submitted a letter in which it represented that it would contribute$250,000.00 toward field improvements. In making his recommendation the superintendentfailed to disclose the scores of the submissions and did not consider, employ, and use thePoint System delineated in the RFP. At no time did the superintendent or any of his staffdisclose the score results of the Scoring Criteria for Winston Churchill High Schoolavailable to the Board.

The Board of Education did not engage in any consideration, or evaluation, of thesubmissions for the Stadium Field Use Agreement for the stadium field of Winston ChurchillHigh School. Rather, the Board accepted the recommendation of the superintendent inawarding the Stadium Field Use Agreement for the non-school use of the Churchill HighSchool stadium field to the Bethesda Lacrosse/Potomac Soccer Association and WinstonChurchill High School Booster Club pursuant to c t Resolution adopted on June 3, 2014, andit, too, failed to consider, employ, and use the Point System delineated in the Churchill RFPand did not disclose the scores of the submissions per the Scoring Criteria of the ChurchillRFP. Attachment G. This award was to partnerships which is contrary to the explicitstatement of the selection committee that submissions by partnerships were not acceptable.More fundamentally, the financial payment of the Bethesda Lacro~se/Potomac SoccerAssociation was less than that offered by MSI. ~~Mi. Song liaClrepre~epted to__MSLthai~1'


10/11

In awarding the Stadium Field Use Agreement for the non-school use of the ChurchillHigh School stadium field the Board failed to consider, employ, and use the administrativeregulation or procedure delineated in, and required by, the Churchill RFP and did notdisclose the scores of the submissions under the Scoring Criteria of the Churchill RFP. Italso allowed the booster club to piggyback onto the submission of the BethesdaLacrosse/Potomac Soccer Association. ~t..ac11on.._was.legal1y~iinpermissiDJEa . .M-u.u '

Prior to the Board's June 3, 2014, meeting MSI filed a protest as to therecommendations for the Stadium Field Use Agreements for the stadium fields at RichardMontgomery High School and Winston Churchill High School. IT.hosilfflured: f ? U

MSI has been prejudiced and harmed by the failure of the Board to follow its ownadministrative regulations and procedures, the irregularities in the process by which thedecisions were made with respect to both the Richard Montgomery RFP and Churchill RFPand the conflict of interest in the award of the Churchill RFP.Clt-Wm;~}}aite~into JSignificanfincreased.submission for)he ..G~urglJigh,.S.chootstadiuiiilieraJ Under thefacts known at the time this lawsuit has been filed, the prejudice and harm would include, butnot necessarily be limited to, the failure to award the Stadium Field Use Agreements for thenon-school use of the Richard Montgomery High School stadium field and Churchill HighSchool stadium field to MSI. Pretrial discovery may result in disclosure of additionalimproprieties which may result in amending this Complaint.If the administrative regulation or procedure consisting of the points awarded pursuantto the Scoring Criteria contained in the Richard Montgomery RFP and Churchill RFP hadbeen properly considered, employed, and used; had scores been disclosed; had the Boardotherwise followed its administrative regulations and procedures; and had there been noconflict of interest or misrepresentations, the Stadium Field Use Agreements fo r the RichardMontgomery High School stadium field and Winston Churchill High School stadium fieldwould have been awarded to MSI.

As the foregoing factual background reveals, the RFPs contained a specific pointscoring process by which partners were to be selected for the non-school use of the stadiumfields at the Winston Churchill High School and Richard Montgomery High School.Attached to this letter are copies of the Board of Education Policy that mandates theutilization of an administrative process, the RFPs, recommendation of the Superintendent,and the Resolutions of the Board of Education making the contract awards. A casual review

10


11/11

of these attachments demonstrate that, undeniably, the selection process required theutilization of the point scoring criteria and that that criteria is not reflected in therecommendation of the superintendent of schools nor, more importantly, the action taken bythe Board of Education. This however is an extremely important decision that impacts thelives of all children who reside in Montgomery County. MSI takes seriously its commitmentto the youth of the County and strongly believes that transparency, fairness, and compliancewith the rules are fundamental to the process by which the non-school use of athletic fieldsare to be decided by local g~overnmentauthorities. Tfie ~oaraorEauc~on ha~tt.er.Ly.-faile(}f011owhat process and N.ISTfias,egre a y, een obheyted t2...~eekt fgrma revie~processmcludingjudicial revieefliitnis circumstance, MSI urges that the Council take noaction which would further consummate the improper action that has already been taken bythe Board of Education.

Respectfully submitted,D fl;

2014 July MSI Soccer Public Comment to Montgomery County Council

Documents

Transcript of 2014 July MSI Soccer Public Comment to Montgomery County Council