ROCK EXCLUSIVE: BOS Clears MWH, Paavo Ogren of Conflict of Interest in Los Osos Sewer; Schicker Stands Firm

Former LOCSD President Lisa Schicker calls perfunctory dismissal of her complaint by the Board of Supervisors and County Counsel “troubling” and “premature.”

Construction engineering giant MWH was green-lighted to lead the two short-lists of all-gravity and treatment contractors bidding for the Los Osos Wastewater Project, and Public Works Director Paavo Ogren was given a clean bill of legal health by County Counsel Warren Jensen in Jensen’s May 5th preliminary report to the Board of Supervisors on conflict of interest complaints lodged against MWH and Ogren.
    
Jensen’s unusual televised response was prompted by a detailed, sourced complaint from former LOCSD president Lisa Schicker regarding allegations and potential conflicts that would disqualify MWH from the bidding process and bump Ogren from further managing of the project. Schicker’s complaint was filed with the Board on April 7th, but the lack of a promised response from the Board and repeated calls to address the complaint by Schicker and others during public comment apparently forced Supervisor Gibson to call for Counsel backup.
    
Even after Schicker presented additional written materials to support the complaint during public comment that afternoon, Chairman Gibson appeared to have already prepared a response, and it was apparent he intended to go forward with it.
    
Gibson said, “Mr. Jensen is in the process of finalizing a written report, and feels he is close enough to the final version of that written report that he would feel comfortable discussing the findings of that analysis publicly at this point. We think it’s appropriate.”
    
Jensen acknowledged receiving new material from Schicker that day and that he would include it in his written analysis for public release due in one to two weeks. However, after analyzing Schicker’s initial submission of materials, Jensen said, “The … main point that was raised was that there’s a belief that Montgomery Watson Harza is disqualified from participating in the design-build process because of the work they did as a subconsultant to Carollo, apparently starting back in about 2006, and we believe that that is not a disqualifying situation under that Public Contract Code 21033D1(b). Actually, that (code) only applies to a contractor who is retained by the County to prepare project specific documents, and that’s not what Montgomery Watson Harza was doing back in 2006.”


Rushed Conclusions
    
Schicker was equally troubled by the premature, incomplete report given by the County, ignoring “the key concerns that were listed in the complaint,” she said. “From Counsel’s report, it was apparent that he had not researched all of the referenced materials that were mentioned.”
    
Most troubling about the Counsel’s report for Schicker was that “he completely ignored the reporting of a felony committed by the public works director for falsifying a public contract, one that involved the same engineering firm – MWH – a firm the County was now considering for the wastewater project.”
    
Jensen also ignored reporting on Schicker’s other concerns about Ogren and MWH. Ogren hired MWH in the fall of 2006, after he had asked the LOCSD to sign a waiver to release MWH, a waiver that he did not receive. The LOCSD board refused to issue the legally required waiver because MWH was suing them. The LOCSD offered to give Ogren all of the MWH project plans and engineering documents to assist him -- work that the citizens had already paid for.” Ogren ignored both the offer of assistance and the required waiver and hired MWH against the LOCSD’s request.  
    
Because the County is requiring the use of the MWH collection design for use by all of the competing consultants in February 2009, Schicker also raised additional design-build code violation concerns that were not addressed.
    
Continued Jensen, “Beyond that there were a number of reasons set forth in Ms. Schicker’s complaint as to why Montgomery Watson Harza should be removed from the short list, or that certain people, including Paavo Ogren, Carollo Engineers, Lou Carella and the Wallace Group, should be recused from the process. My review of the materials that were submitted determined that there simply wasn’t any substantial basis for the board to do that, based on the materials submitted. I found nothing substantial in the materials that were submitted that indicated that the process was tainted.” Jensen did not disclose as to whether he researched any of the referenced documents listed in Schicker’s materials.
    
Even though Schicker offered to assist, she was never contacted by any County staff. She was also denied any access to the Supervisors. When she called to make appointments, she was told she would be unable to have any appointments until after the County Counsel concluded a review of her materials.


Ogren’s Medals
    
Gibson then directed Jensen to the subject of Ogren’s prior role as Interim General Manager of the LOCSD and his association with MWH during that time. “My conclusions,” said Jensen, “were that the materials that were submitted do not prove that there was any wrongdoing by Mr. Ogren.” This comment was made despite the fact that it already had been proven and verified that backdating a contract is a felony.
    
“In fact,” said Schicker, “Mr, Jensen and Mr. Ogren didn’t address the allegations at all; they did not refute them, nor did they deny that Mr. Ogren directed the backdating of the MWH contract, which is a fact, according to former LOCSD General Manager Bruce Buel.”
    
Ogren responded to Counsel’s remarks with bold confidence. “County Counsel has obviously indicated that his review has been limited to the information that has been submitted to him. If individuals out in the public or otherwise have more information,” he said, “I would certainly urge them to submit that as well, because unequivocally I have not engaged in any illegal or unethical activities.”
    
“In fact,” Ogren added, “I think that this is simply more of a pattern of behavior associated with the Los Osos Wastewater Project… There are some public references to other projects Montgomery Watson has worked on and that they should essentially be blacklisted from this project. It certainly would not be my recommendation to blacklist any firm in terms of their qualifications overall… In response to the very concept that we would blacklist any firm, that’s very troubling to me. That would be the type of action that I believe would be significantly unethical, and I would not engage in or support.”
    
Commented Schicker, “It was troubling as well, that Mr. Ogren would use the word ‘blacklisting’ so many times in his comments, as this was never a request that I made in my complaint, but Ogren is notorious for his long-winded explanations and embellishing his soliloquies.”
    
Ogren noted for the record that among the nation’s top design firms, MWH “was No. 14 last year, No. 16 this year. In terms of top design-build firms nationwide, they were No. 29 last year, No. 27 this year, and in terms of the top 200 environmental firms for 2008, they were No. 10 last year, No. 8 this year.”
    
“MWH rankings were not an element of my complaint,” Schicker commented, “their unethical business practices in Florida were, but these were also ignored by Counsel and Ogren, as well as the lack of any discussion about the prior and continuous relationships with and between key project personnel.”
    
In response to a number of public records request, Ogren confirmed that MWH was also, in fact, employed as construction manager by the County on the Lopez Seismic Remediation Project, for which Ogren was project director. Lou Carella, now of Carollo Engineering (the current consulting Project Manager), and then, as a part of RMC Engineering, was also employed for the same project. Ogren proudly cited the Lopez project as an award-winning project, and even showed off his medals.
    
Lou Carella was also on the five-person County review panel for the selection of a short list of engineering firms who would continue to compete for the wastewater project. This panel interviewed and numerically ranked all candidates, reducing the selection down to three firms, MWH ranking first.  
    
Carella was the sole panel member to conduct the telephone (and additional) checks on all of the prospective firms. According to the County’s ‘FOIAA’-released engineering-team score sheet, none of the other four panel members conducted reference checks, and Carella was solely responsible for 35% of each member’s final ranking score – that alone might have biased the results to put MWH on top. Schicker raised the question as to whether MWH disclosed to the panel their problems in other states, and asked how the review team could have missed all of this -- unless Carella didn’t tell them or unless MWH didn’t disclose this info as is required.
    
Questioned Schicker, “Lou Carella used to work for MWH, and Carella and MWH worked together on the Lopez project under Ogren – how can ‘friends’ objectively interview ‘friends’? With this long-term and apparently very cozy relationship between Ogren, MWH and Carella, will the county taxpayers eventually get the best project for the best price? Perhaps this is how it works in the private sector, but this is the community paying for this public project, not a private developer.  
    
“How will the County taxpayers be guaranteed both a fair process and a competitive price if the process appears to be unfair, and that certain consultants are treated differently? What other competent contractors will ever compete in this County for work if the appearance of favoritism is so blatantly obvious to even the casual observer?”


Angry Gibson
    
An angry Gibson admitted restraining his comments for public consumption. “Suffice it to say,” he said, “I think the word I’d use in public session is that I’m troubled by these submissions. They are rife with a number of unsubstantiated assertions of illegal activity by Mr. Ogren and corruption by Mr. Ogren, and I take considerable offense at those assertions, especially when the pattern is quite clear, that some information from here or there, a dramatically incomplete record of information, is thrown out and a great leap is made clearly in the direction of asserting some malfeasance on behalf of any individual who in my estimation conducted himself with impeccable integrity through this very long and arduous process.”
    
Schicker never mentioned the word ‘corruption’ – Gibson did.
    
“I see nothing of substance, nothing in any way credible about the material Miss Schicker has brought forward,” Gibson continued. “It seems mostly (in) regard (to) the inner actions between the Los Osos CSD and Montgomery Watson Harza (and) has no credible assertion, much less proof of anything to do with Mr. Ogren’s conduct or anything the County has done, and I think we can safely, simply dismiss them as anything significant we have to weigh in terms of our consideration.”
    
Schicker responded to both Gibson and Jensen’s final statements by stating that she was equally troubled by the County’s complete lack of response to the most serious items described in her complaints: “Counsel did not address the key issues I raised about Montgomery Watson Harza suing the LOCSD or about them being hired by the County without the required legal waivers or the long and financially beneficial relationship between Ogren, Carella and MWH on projects paid for, not by the private sector, but by County taxpayers.
    
“We, the community of Los Osos via the LOCSD, are in litigation with MWH, and there is an LOCSD cross-complaint alleging serious charges,” she said. “It is beyond me how the County can short-list a contractor to work in our community that’s suing us, a firm that designed a failed project that it appears that no one ever wanted in the first place, at least according to the County Survey.
    
“Why did County Counsel omit speaking to the public about these elements of the complaint, instead focusing on MWH as one of the bankruptcy creditors? That wasn’t even an issue listed as a concern in my complaint, and didn’t require any explanation – and it was also confusing to the public who were looking for answers.”
    
Schicker was deeply troubled by Gibson’s apparent lack of understanding about the roles and responsibilities of current or previously elected public officials. “It was my legal responsibility to come forward and report any suspected unethical or criminal behavior,” she said, “and I was compelled to do so because of my unique position as a previously elected official with first-hand knowledge.”
    
Schicker was also troubled that Gibson had to resort to what amounted to a verbal “public flogging,” one which Schicker or anyone else could respond to, as a result of Schicker’s willingness to come forward as a former elected official and state her concerns to the Board for the record in order to safeguard the public.
    
“All he had to say was, ‘It appears that Miss Schicker’s complaints have no merit – so far.’ He should have waited and reviewed everything before giving legal opinion on the record,” she said, “rather than appearing to be judging me or the carefully sourced and referenced information I presented in good faith as a responsible citizen and former elected district officer.”
    
Jensen said his written report should be available to the public within two weeks.
    
“I look forward to County Counsel providing the public with a more thoughtful, balanced written review of all the submitted material,” Schicker said, “one that more accurately reflects the many remaining issues of concern.”