Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council criticizes staff after RFQ for economic-development partner was closed without evaluation; staff proposes drafting RFP and strategic plan
Summary
Councilors pressed city staff after Purchasing reported that an RFQ for an economic-development consultant (Bid26002) was closed because proposals were not evaluated within the RFQ’s 90-day window; staff said five proposals were submitted and suggested developing a strategic‑plan RFP and a refined procurement scope for council review.
City purchasing staff told Pueblo City Council at its July 6 work session that the RFQ for a consultant on economic development (Bid26002) was posted on OpenGov, drew strong interest (1,223 courtesy emails, 713 views, 41 document downloads, seven draft responses and five submitted proposals) and was closed without evaluation because staff did not complete evaluations within the RFQ’s 90‑day confidentiality window.
That disclosure prompted multiple councilors to sharply question city staff about why the proposals were never evaluated nor returned to council as previously requested. Council members said they had expected the submissions to be reviewed and brought back for council input; several members called for moving directly to an RFP or for producing a city economic‑development strategic plan that would define the scope of work before soliciting a partner.
Purchasing Director Teresa Burns and city staff said the RFQ was intended to gather information on possible partners and that one option now is to draft an RFP with clear, quantifiable scope items so bidders can be asked for prices. Staff also outlined an alternative: procure a strategic plan through a separate contract (an ordinance on the plan’s funding was expected for second reading the following Monday) and use that plan to define subsequent procurement scopes.
Staff emphasized they kept all submitted proposals confidential and that the proposals cannot be recycled verbatim in a future procurement to avoid unfair advantage. Several councilors urged staff to return a draft RFP or a reworked RFQ to council within a target (staff suggested 90 days) that includes council review before final posting. The council also debated how evaluation committees are formed and which council members may view proposals under confidentiality agreements.
Why it matters: the item involves potential multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar contracts for economic development, long‑standing disagreements over the city’s relationship with local economic organizations (PEDCO/Advanced Pueblo), and governance questions about staff follow‑through on council directives. Council members raised concerns about transparency, timing and whether the administration had properly executed the ordinance directing the RFQ.
