More on Wastewatergate ... The Poisoned Project

The Town of Mooresville’s request to dismiss the case against it by two former town employees was not heard as scheduled yesterday, April 7.

The town’s “motion for summary judgment” was supposed to go before a Superior Court Judge in Statesville. And while it’s unclear the exact reason why the case didn’t make it to court, one could speculate that either the hearing was postponed, or a settlement has been reached.

Either way, in the eleventh hour, the Town of Mooresville amended its motion for summary judgment with a “declaration of Tonia Wimberly,” the town’s current engineering division supervisor. Wimberly began working for the town in August 2004, and she worked beside the two former town employees, Engineering Director Richard McMillan and Utilities Director Wilce Martin, until former Town Manager Jamie Justice fired the two men in February 2006.

Both men had publicly opposed the town’s 2004 hiring of engineering firm CH2M Hill to design the town’s Rocky River Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion. Of all the engineering firms that submitted “Statements of Qualifications” to the town, CH2M Hill was the least qualified for the project, according to town staff -- including Wimberly. The 2004 town board hired CH2M Hill anyway, saying that an official with that firm was a local person who had once worked at the town’s wastewater treatment plant.

That official, David Wagoner, is no longer employed by CH2M Hill. Neither is the firm’s original manager for Mooresville’s project, Mike Osborne, nor (according to new reports) the project principal, Joe Stowe. Engineer Derek Slocum left the town last year. And Justice resigned as town manager in February 2008 per the request of Mooresville’s town board.

These are among the reasons we have dubbed this issue The Poisoned Project … or Wastewatergate -- take your pick. Almost every person who touched this doomed project has either jumped ship or "walked the plank."

In her “declaration,” Wimberly – who took over leadership of the town’s engineering department after McMillan was fired – states that she, McMillan, Martin and Slocum “were responsible for narrowing the Statements of Qualifications down to a ‘short-list’ of engineering firms who were qualified to do the project.

“We narrowed the list to six engineering firms, all of whom were qualified to do the project,” she states.

CH2M Hill “was among the six engineering firms on the short-list,” Wimberly adds.

Stop the bus. What is conveniently missing in Wimberly’s “declaration” is that several Mooresville commissioners in 2004 explicitly instructed town staff to include CH2M Hill on that “short-list.” In other words, the reason CH2M Hill was included was not because it was among the six most qualified. Wimberly also failed to mention that town board members were reportedly pressuring town staff to select CH2M Hill and that commissioners had already decided to hire CH2M Hill before town staff narrowed the field of firms to six.

Moving on…

Wimberly states in her “declaration” that “All of the short-list engineering firms … have performed similar work in the past. Based on their licensing and their experience, any of the six engineering firms on the short-list could have designed the Rocky River Treatment Plant.”

Actually, here’s how three of the six firms on that “short-list” – Black & Veatch (which town staff ultimately recommended to the town board), CDM (which was ranked second by town staff) and CH2M Hill (which the town board ultimately chose for the project) – stacked up to the town’s requirements, based on the firms' own submitted qualifications:

• Black & Veatch listed six projects in which it provided similar services as Mooresville’s in the region within the past eight years. CDM listed four. CH2M Hill listed one, which involved design improvements, modifications and upgrades to a treatment plant, not an expansion which is what the Town of Mooresville needs.
  
• Black & Veatch listed five treatment plant expansions similar in size to Mooresville’s that it had designed in the region within the past eight years. CDM listed one. CH2M Hill listed none.
  
• Black & Veatch’s proposed team included 19 employees that had worked together on a project, which was substantially more than the proposed teams of any other firms. Additionally, the teams listed in the proposals from Black & Veatch and CDM contained more professionally licensed individuals than the team proposed by CH2M Hill.
  
• Though it wasn’t addressed in the Statements of Qualifications, we have discovered in the past year that Black & Veatch, had it been hired instead of CH2M Hill, also would have known to consider phosphorous requirements before it began designing the town’s treatment plant expansion. CH2M Hill, on the other hand, said it was "unaware" of the phosphorous limits until its design was 60 percent complete. And that meant that the firm was going to need to go back and change some things in its design – to the tune of a requested additional $2 million from the Town of Mooresville ... as if we, the town's sewer customers, are expected to pay for the learning curve of such an "experienced, qualified firm." Wimberly was fully aware of the pending $2 million request for at least two weeks before she and CH2M Hill presented it to Mooresville's town board in August 2007. Yet Wimberly did not disclose the amount when a town commissioner specifically asked for it at a public meeting. But that’s another soap opera, for another day…

Back to the firm grading process:

So far, we've established that Wimberly, along with the other three town staff members (McMillan, Martin and Slocum), independently reviewed and graded the firms in 2004. Their review and grading was supposed to be based solely on the information in the firms’ own Statements of Qualifications – and how well those listed qualifications met town standards.

Judging from the first three bullet points above, Wimberly’s information in her “declaration” about CH2M Hill’s experience clearly did not come from the Statement of Qualifications that CH2M Hill itself submitted to the town’s engineering department.

And of all five engineering firms selected as finalists, CH2M Hill was ranked last -- that's right, last -- by all four town staff members, including – you guessed it – Tonia Wimberly.

In fact, Wimberly herself gave Black & Veatch a score of 51. She gave CDM a score of 43. She scored two other firms at 32 and 28. And her score for CH2M Hill: 27.

The highest attainable score was 55. The lowest was 11.

But, interestingly, Wimberly doesn’t mention any of that in her “declaration.” Instead, she states: “CH2M Hill was an engineering firm that was and is qualified to perform the work on the project.

“The Town of Mooresville,” she added, “was required to select a qualified engineering firm based on that firm’s demonstrated competence and qualification for the type of professional services required …”

Again I ask: Where exactly was that “competence and qualification” demonstrated? It certainly wasn’t in CH2M Hill’s own Statement of Qualifications submitted to the town, which was the only information town staff was supposed to use in grading and recommending the firms.

Wimberly is correct when stating in her “declaration” that “The Board of Commissioners for the Town of Mooresville had the final say in selection of the engineering firm that the Board believed was best qualified to perform the work on the Project.”

And, indeed, that board in 2004 hijacked the professional opinion of our town staff -- including Wimberly -- who recommended Black & Veatch for Mooresville’s treatment plant expansion. Town commissioners instead chose CH2M Hill, the firm that town staff – and (should I state it again?) Wimberly herself – ranked least qualified for the job.

Wimberly states in her “declaration”: “The Board’s selection of CH2M Hill was in compliance with the requirements of” state statutes. She doesn't mention, though, that the board was supposed to, but didn't, follow state statutes that regulate the selection of an engineering firm.

Even if the town board's selection of CH2M Hill was 100 percent compliant with state statutes, the question is: was its selection the best one for our town?

And Wimberly doesn’t address that either. Why? Well, I could speculate a number of reasons. Among them:

• Wimberly fears repercussions from town administration and/or elected officials. After all, her colleagues, McMillan and Martin, were fired for standing up for the taxpayers of this town. Why would she risk that?
  
• The town’s “Manager of Engineering” position – once held by McMillan – is vacant and currently being advertised.
  
• Wimberly is friends with JD Solomon, the Vice President and Carolinas Area Manager of CH2M Hill. (Solomon is the same guy, by the way, who put on a show at two different board meetings, saying per the advice of CH2M Hill “counsel,” he would need permission from town commissioners to speak to them since the town and CH2M Hill have a communication protocol which states that CH2M Hill will converse about the project only with town staff. Interestingly, Commissioner Frank Rader, in one of those same public meetings, disclosed that he had a lunch meeting with Solomon that week to discuss some aspects of the project. And rumor has it that Solomon at least tried to meet with other town commissioners, also outside the presence of the public, town staff and administrators. Hmph. So much for Solomon’s “above-board adherence” to the communication protocol…)

But Solomon isn’t the subject here.

The Rules of Professional Conduct for Engineers and Surveyors, Section 21 NCAC 56.0701 (d)(1), states that a licensee – which would include Tonia Wimberly – “shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner and ... shall be objective and truthful in all professional reports, statements or testimony."

Is Tonia Wimberly being truthful and objective? You decide.