Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Resident challenges CRA attorney: didn’t disclose evaluation-criteria weights before solicitation, citing Section 163.38
Loading...
Summary
A public commenter told the CRA that not disclosing evaluation-criteria weights to proposers before issuing a solicitation is improper and cited Section 163.38; the CRA attorney said the public notice was for disposition of land under Section 163.38 and defended the board’s approach as legally defensible.
At a Riviera Beach CRA meeting, public commenter Nakasha Wells challenged a legal opinion that, she said, permits issuing a solicitation without disclosing how proposal scores will be weighted. Wells argued the practice conflicts with procurement norms and cited Section 163.38 of the Florida Statutes, saying the board must disclose evaluation weights in advance.
Wells told the board that Section 163.38 governs disposition of land but does not govern procurement procedures and that, after a jurisdiction decides to issue an RFP, the solicitation rules — including the relative points or weights for evaluation criteria — must be disclosed to ensure fairness and transparency. “For you all to issue an RFP and not disclose to the proposers what the weight of the evaluation criteria… that was the legal issue that… is absolutely, patently illegal,” she said.
CRA attorney Smith responded that the notice issued to the public was a "notice of sale of real property and community redevelopment agency by the city of Riviera Beach, CRA" and that the notice was issued under Section 163.38. He said there are aspects of procedure that resemble RFP processes but that the board’s prior decisions are legally defensible and that he looks forward to refining procedure so all parties are on the same page.
The exchange highlighted an unresolved legal question about whether the public notice and solicitation process used in this matter complied with disclosure norms typically associated with RFPs and ITNs. Witnesses during public comment also said several board members had not received the legal opinion that had been requested in a prior meeting, and Wells urged the board to ensure every member understands the exact legal question that was asked of counsel.
No formal legal ruling or vote was made at the meeting; the issue was raised publicly and remains subject to clarification by the board and counsel.
