The post Testimony: St. Louis County Procurement Rules appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For some background, Festus and Crystal City—two adjoining cities in Jefferson County—are planning to sell their shared municipal sewer system. That, by itself, is a good thing they deserve credit for. However, the cities never went out for open bids on the project. They negotiated behind the scenes with only one other entity, the Jefferson County Public Sewer District (JCPSD), on the sale. They went public in June with the proposal and have entered into a formal arrangement to continue negotiations with the JCPSD. (Nobody has finalized anything yet, to be clear.)

JCPSD is offering $5 million for the system. While that may be a fair price and while JCPSD seems fully capable of running the sewer system for the community, how do the cities know if it is the best deal if they don’t accept other bids?

I filed a sunshine request with Festus last month for public records regarding the potential sale. I asked for the available records. I received the response last week. The city’s response is utterly worthless. There is nothing in it beyond copies of prior ordinances authorizing the sewer system, recent bills authorizing the city to negotiate with JCPSD, and copies of public notices. There is not one e-mail in the response, which means either no city officials or employees ever sent an e-mail on this topic over the past year—or they are claiming every e-mail is privileged. When we asked why there were no e-mails in the response, this is what they wrote me:

The City has reviewed the records within its custody which would be responsive to the requests. In response to those requests, we have provided those records which are responsive and which are open under the Missouri Sunshine Law. As noted in the City’s letter responding to the requests, certain records of the City were withheld as closed records, pursuant to Section 610.021, RSMo (1), (2), (12), and (17).

In fact, total secrecy was demanded by JCPSD and the two cities right from the beginning, despite the fact that openness, not secrecy, would have likely led to more bids and a better deal for the cities and taxpayers. Here is section eleven from the initial letter from the JCPSD to the cities dated November 17, 2022, but not made public until much later:

Without the prior written approval of the other parties, unless otherwise required by law, neither the JMUC, District, nor Cities will disclose the existence of this letter or any information concerning the transactions contemplated in this letter, to any third party, other than such party’s attorney, accountant, or professional advisor who needs to know such information to perform his or her duties in connection with this letter or intend or the transactions contemplated by this letter and who shall first agree to the confidentiality of this letter.

This has been anything but an open and transparent process. The public hearings on this matter were held shortly after the proposal was first announced, and the two city councils voted to approve the memorandum of understanding with JCPSD the exact same night as the public hearings. (Officials voting the same night is always a red flag that a public hearing is a dog-and-pony show.) The cities took no other bids or proposals, despite being well aware other entities would like to bid on the sewer systems. Now they are hiding behind legal exemptions to not share any records on the deliberations and discussions of the sale.

Festus and Crystal City selling their sewer system to a larger organization, public or private, with more resources is a great idea. Going about it all in this manner, however, is terrible government. It may be legal, but it is wrong.

The post An Airing of Grievances about Sewer Sales in Festus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Star’s board is correct to caution against the “troubling, recurring and unhelpful mindset that crucial details of the KCI project must be kept hidden from public view”—recall that the mayor and city manager wanted to skip the bidding process altogether and then require councilmembers to sign nondisclosure agreements. Because of such secrecy and ineptitude, we still don’t know much about the final details of the project.

Consider that the same editorial states that the $1.4 billion projected cost for the terminal is likely to go up, and that we are not sure that the airlines are on board with the project. At the time of the vote in 2017, not only did Kansas Citians not know the details of the contract with Edgemoor, we didn’t even have a basic understanding of what that contract might look like. Yet the Star’s editorial board includes this line in their piece:

It’s been nearly a year since Kansas City voters overwhelmingly approved a new terminal at the airport. That vote proved Kansas Citians are more than capable of digesting a frank conversation about an important public issue.

What exactly was that frank conversation about if it wasn’t about contracts, costs, number of gates, or community benefit agreements? There wasn’t even enough substance to guarantee the airlines were fully on board. What we got from the Star at the time were pie-in-the-sky arguments that contradicted its own journalists’ reporting.

It’s more likely that the vote proved that a well-funded public relations campaign with little to no opposition can convince voters to trust city officials to do the right thing despite those same officials’ hostility to basic transparency.

Back before the vote and even today, the Star has supported the idea of a new terminal, but it doesn’t know the details about the project in question. No one does. That sums up much of our and others’ arguments regarding why the project should not have moved forward.

It may be completely reasonable, once issues such as cost and contract and airline agreements are settled, to support a billion-and-a-half (likely more) dollar new terminal. And the editorial board is correct that cost overruns and delays are to be expected with any project of this size. But up until the point that such information is known, no one knows enough about this project to support it. Instead, the Star has chosen to give carte-blanche to the same officials they criticize for not being transparent.

Unless city officials feel that they are being held accountable—that is, that support for the project could be withdrawn should it turn into the boondoggle that many fear—Kansas Citians are unlikely to see any more transparency than they have up to this point.

The post Kansas City Star Editorial Board Gets It Half Right appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kansas City issued a request for proposals with the deadline of June 12, 2016. Eight companies submitted bids to complete the work. The companies and their total bid prices are listed below. Note that CDFA, which was awarded the project, was the highest bidder. The final contract award was even higher: $350,000.

I have attached electronic copies of the RFP and all the bids at the bottom of this post. Feel free to dig through them and let us know what you find. Here are some things we found noteworthy:

• Collins Noteis & Associates (“a WBE-certified firm specializing in urban planning, community planning, economic development planning, and government affairs”) is listed as a subcontractor on at least two of the bids: EPS and EDR.
• EPS’ bid includes as a subcontractor Parsons & Associates, which is a Kansas City–based public relations firm whose work would account for just over 10 percent of the cost. Why is a PR firm contracting to provide economic analysis?
• CDFA’s winning bid included participation of the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. This is promising because the Upjohn Institute recently published a study concluding that:

The existing research on incentives is that in some cases they can affect business location decisions, but that in many cases they are excessively costly and may not have the promised effects. The new research suggests that much of this consensus is justified.

• CDFA’s bid lists the Hardwick Law Firm LLC as a “team member.” Herb Hardwick, founder of that firm, still serves as counsel to the Kansas City TIF Commission—whose work CDFA will be assessing. This could be a significant conflict of interest.

The CDFA contract is operating under its fourth deadline extension, which ends in late July. We don’t know if a fifth extension will be sought or granted. But given the great cost, the delays, and questions raised by the choice of vendor, one wonders if anyone at City Hall is interested in a serious analysis of our incentive regime.

The post City Chooses Highest Bidder to Conduct Economic Development Analysis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Important details of the new terminal remain unknown. We don’t know the final costs. We don’t know the financing details, or how building contracts will be awarded. All those things are being reevaluated now. Voters should vote no on Question 1 until they know exactly what is being asked of them. This is too important to get wrong.

Voters approved the measure by a wide margin, with three-fourths voting yes. It was a clear mandate to move forward. But the details remain murky even to insiders. Just last week, the City Council voted 9 to 4 against a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Edgemoor Infrastructure & Real Estate. Following the vote, Mayor James described the vote as an “ambush” and excoriated his colleagues, saying “you can’t lead people you can’t trust. . . You can’t lead people who sneak.” But Councilman Quinton Lucas, who supported a yes vote on Question 1, told The Kansas City Star,

There’s a reimbursement agreement that obligates the city to potentially millions of dollars, a number of those costs incurred before the election. There was absolutely no detail on financing. I know we want flexibility, but we also want to know what we are binding the city to, potentially for years to come.

Lucas was not alone. Councilman Scott Wagner, who also supported approval of Question 1, issued a statement about his concerns on Facebook in which he detailed important matters that appear to be unresolved in the MOU. He indicated that he had been raising these concerns for quite some time. Just before the vote, Kansas City’s Black Chamber of Commerce said that the MOU before the Council lacked transparency and were “weak for minority participation.” As David Hudnall at The Pitch writes in an excellent overview of the debacle, the astonishing part is the failure of the MOU to protect the city’s interests.

These were all the same concerns I detailed before the public vote, and it is a shame that they were not addressed before the Council vote. Given all this, it’s surprising that Mayor James did not know that 9 of his colleagues were going to vote against the MOU. But in an effort “marked by distrust, misinformation, unnecessary secrecy and conflict,” maybe it should be no surprise at all.

The post The Airport and Transparency appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The KCI Affair: Triumph or Fiasco appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When the original story broke on May 11, we learned that Burns & Mac has offered their own airport solution:

One key to the proposal for Burns & McDonnell is that it would get an exclusive arrangement with the city to provide the design and come up with a guaranteed maximum price.

Other firms would not have access to make their own offer, nor would the city request bids. James said the city would waive bidding requirements in accepting this plan and that it is legal for the city to do that.

That last part was called into question and the city rescinded the plan shortly thereafter. But Burns & Mac remained the sole provider and they were strident in going it alone.  The CEO of architectural firm BNIM was caught off-guard and wondered why they—and other Kansas City firms—were not included. This could not have been mere oversight; we’re told that Burns & Mac developed the plan over several months with 25 employees working on the project full time. Perhaps they thought at the time that their long-standing relationship with the Mayor was all they needed.

That changed quickly. The no-bid contract fell apart, as did the poorly considered right-of-first refusal option, along with the short window for considering proposals. Now that the deadline has been extended and other international companies are considering making proposals, Burns & Mac is teaming up with those KC firms they once thought unnecessary. Previously, Burns & Mac added general contractors JE Dunn and McCownGordon to their team. At the same time, the firm is publicizing data from a poll they themselves commissioned, raising concerns that I described in a previous post.

The question for Council members and voters ought to be: Does any of this yield a better, more cost-effective product for the people of Kansas City? The companies involved should not drive the decision-making. After all, if Burns & Mac didn’t think they needed BNIM et al. before, why do they think they need them now?

The post Policy, Not Politics, Should Drive Airport Decision appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Process matters in public policy. Moving past a fast-track no-bid contract to an open and transparent bidding process is necessary for good decision-making. As a city-wide vote is required, there will be a public campaign on what to do. The public has been wary of the proposal up to this point.

That may be changing. Steve Vockrodt at the Star has authored a piece about a public opinion survey conducted by Remington Research and paid for by Burns & McDonnell, the firm that was to be awarded the no-bid contract before the City Council got involved.  Vockrodt wrote:

The latest poll by Remington said 40 percent opposed the single-terminal idea, while 22 percent were unsure.

Those results ticked upward by double-digit percentage points when respondents were told about a Burns & McDonnell plan to privately finance, design and build a new single terminal. Support on that basis grew to 55 percent favoring the proposal, compared to 23 percent against and 22 percent unsure. The polling suggests that respondents warm to a local firm’s involvement in the project as well as a private financing model.

Unfortunately, neither Remington nor Burns & Mac have released the full survey. This is important as surveys can be subject to bias—both intentional and not. Having worked in public and corporate polling for 15 years, I know that opinion research can not only measure public opinion, but be used to influence it. That is why the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s (AAPOR) Code of Ethics requires researchers to release, among other things:

The exact wording and presentation of questions and response options whose results are reported. This includes preceding interviewer or respondent instructions and any preceding questions that might reasonably be expected to influence responses to the reported results.

Vockrodt quoted Councilwoman Katheryn Shields as being skeptical of a poll sponsored by a firm that had so much to gain from the debate. She offered, “I’m astonished that a company with the reputation of Burns & McDonnell would continue to needlessly interfere with the bid practices of this city.”

The public has been engaged in the discussion of a new terminal at MCI for at least 4 years. The debate has been less than transparent, and many of the arguments in favor of a new terminal have been proved false. Councilwoman Shields is right: For the sake of good public policy, it is incumbent on all the participants, including Burns & Mac and other applicants, to respect the process.

The post On KCI, Process Is Important appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Consider a recent story in The Kansas City Star, which states that Burns & McDonnell would be given “the opportunity to equal other proposals if it chooses, since it brought the idea to a municipality to begin with.” The Star called this “nuance,” though apparently some thought it was a serious problem. Seven days later, the Star reported that:

City Manager Troy Schulte said Monday that the city’s lawyers had advised that the right of first refusal could potentially be subjected to a legal challenge, so it was eliminated.

How did a proposal outside the city’s municipal procurement code provisions, and possibly even fodder for a lawsuit, get past the corporate attorneys at Burns & Mac and all the attorneys on the City Council, including Mayor Sly James himself? Why did the City Manager announce the decision to allow Burns & Mac the right of first refusal without consulting with the city’s attorneys beforehand? If he did consult with them, how did they initially miss it? And how did The Kansas City Star, the city’s paper of record, unquestioningly describe a potentially unlawful bidding practice as mere “nuance?”

Could it be that this policy proposal—if it can be called that—is being rushed through? That may be an odd question to raise about a matter that has been under discussion in Kansas City for years, but it appears to be what is happening.

The public wasn’t convinced of the need for a new single terminal before this latest political fiasco kicked off. The deadline of a public vote in November has created a false sense of urgency—resulting in the kind of mistakes you’d expect from people more concerned with getting something done fast than with getting it done right.

The airport is an important and valuable asset. The consequences of a mistake in the planning or implementation of its development will reverberate throughout the region for decades. There is no reason to rush this decision—good policy is not served by hurried half-measures. The Star—and the airlines themselves—ought to suspend their calls for a November election, and the Council ought to ignore false deadlines. 

The post Ready-Fire-Aim Approach Yields Predictable Results at KCI appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As the Associated Press reports, Missouri State Parks is planning to open a $52 million facility in Shannon County, and the parks department would like to provide canoe-rentals to park goers. The department purchased a piece of property formerly known as Camp Zoe. The campground was seized by the DEA in 2012 and later sold by the Department of Natural Resources to Missouri State Parks for $640,000.

Launching canoes into the river is not as simple as buying a piece of land at an auction. Businesses must have a permit for each canoe, and the number of canoes is limited. Therefore, the parks department will either have to purchase an existing canoe company and take over the company’s permits or attempt to wrestle permits away from an existing company. In either scenario, the government is poised to crowd out private enterprise with the financial backing of state taxpayers.

It is quite possible that the family-owned canoe rental place you love (Mine is Windy’s) could be put out of business by the good intentions of public servants. While parks and recreation may seem like a natural place for the state to offer services, it is important to realize that when the state takes on a larger role providing recreational activities, it crowds out private businesses that are already providing these services.

The post Missouri State Parks Floating the Idea of Crowding Out Private Enterprise appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Currently, eight large highway projects either have been completed or are in progress using design-build project delivery, including KCicon and the new I-64/US 40. This process has resulted in significant savings for MoDOT and has improved project delivery.

Design-build differs from the traditional design-bid-build method we’ve been using for years. In design-bid-build, the design work is completed before the construction ever begins. Only after the design is finished—often by MoDOT’s own engineers—is the project bid out to contractors. While this ensures that MoDOT has complete control of the design phase, it often leads to additional expenses in time and potential change orders. MoDOT says so itself.

Design-build allows MoDOT to bid out the design and the construction at the same time. This means construction can start much sooner, and that while MoDOT has overall control of the design work, it may not all be completed before the project begins. The biggest benefit of design-build, however, is the significant cost savings.

A 2006 study by the Federal Highway Administration found that design-build projects were completed with significant time savings with little or no change orders and lower administrative costs. In Texas, design-build saved taxpayers 22 percent in costs over six years, and projects were completed 14 percent faster.

Allowing MoDOT to use design-build more often would require a change in statute. According to Missouri statute, MoDOT may use design-build sparingly and only until the middle of 2018:

The total number of highway design-build project contracts awarded by the commission in any state fiscal year shall not exceed two percent of the total number of all state highway system projects awarded to contracts for construction from projects listed in the commission's approved statewide transportation improvement project for that state fiscal year. Authority to enter into design-build projects granted by this section shall expire on July 1, 2018, unless extended by statute.

If the legislature wants to help MoDOT help itself by saving money, it ought to consider increasing the cap on design-build projects and extending them for much longer than 2018.

The post Design-Build and Save appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to some, ending competition for convention catering business would increase quality:

An exclusive food provider, according to O’Neal, would help the convention center ensure quality control because “with one vendor, the building can control quality better, and that’s what people remember about a building.”

City Manager Troy Schulte agrees. Even if the city weren’t negotiating with Hyatt, Schulte said, he was thinking about moving toward a single caterer. He said the city has received some complaints about catering, which he declined to specify. Schulte said a single provider would make quality control better.

You read that right. Some Kansas City leaders apparently think that reducing choice increases quality. (By the way, Aramark has an exclusive catering agreement at Kauffman Stadium, and they haven’t been doing so well regarding quality.)

This flawed thinking isn’t limited to the catering contract, according to the Memorandum of Understanding. Neither the initial award of catering nor the award of the construction contract for the hotel are to be competitively bid. The city apparently just plans to give those contracts to Hyatt and J.E. Dunn respectively without making sure their bids are the best or the cheapest.

Is it any wonder that city finances are such a mess when even the most basic economic principles of choice and competition are disregarded?

The post Back in the USSR appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This month, the St. Louis City Board of Aldermen is considering legislation that would rig the construction contract bidding process in favor of union contractors. And it looks like a political move to scratch the back of an important constituency at the expense of the smaller minority contractors shut out by this type of legislation.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. In 2012, the St. Louis County Council enacted similar regulations. Just as that law was a shameful example of special-interest pandering in the county, this legislation appears to serve the same function for city politicians who rely on trade and construction unions to stay in power. According to a story in the St. Louis American, Alderman Joe Vaccaro, who introduced this bill, freely admitted that the labor unions came to him with this bill and asked him to introduce it.

Of course, the bill does not specifically say that it would limit bids and contracts to “union-only” contractors. That would be illegal. Instead, it mandates a requirement that will legally accomplish the same goal. The new ordinance requires bidders on contracts of $25,000 or more to offer apprentice-training programs that are generally found in union shops. For all practical purposes, the only way a contractor or company can offer this type of program—and be allowed to participate in city construction contract bids—is to become a union shop. It would be an extreme burden for the typical independent non-union company to participate in the apprentice program. Whatever that burden may be, the city has no business mandating it.

Minority contractors, who want nothing more than an equal playing field in which to compete, say that restricting non-union contractors from bidding on construction projects will prevent minority-owned contractors from winning contracts. The county bill ended up keeping African-American independent contractors out of county construction worksites. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. And government favoritism that has a disproportionately negative impact on minority businesses and independent contractors is simply indefensible.

Moreover, if the city adopts this legislation and non-union shops no longer participate in the bid process, taxpayers will take a hit. Limiting the number of potential bidders can only have one effect: raising overall prices. Researchers at the Beacon Hill Institute found that Project-Labor Agreements (PLAs), another method of union-favored project bidding, raised costs to taxpayers by 27 percent over non-PLA projects (which included many non-union bidders). This new law for Saint Louis City likely would have a similar result.

Law should facilitate open access, such that access to public institutions is not contingent on personal relationships and political connections. Law should be structured to apply to everyone equally. By favoring unionized contractors over non-unionized contractors, this bill reeks of cronyism. This is one bad idea I hope will not come back again, but as Yogi said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

John Wright is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Playing Favorites on the Board of Aldermen? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I didn’t catch why my DJ was upset with the Board of Aldermen, but one reason Saint Louisans are upset with the board right now is their decision to consider a bill that purportedly limits minority businesses from bidding on county government contracts.

The bill mimics regrettable legislation passed by the county in 2012 that requires bidders on construction contracts of $25,000 or more to maintain their own Department of Labor-approved apprentice program. The catch is that union contractors are often the only bidders who can meet this requirement.

When the county council adopted its bill in 2012, my colleague David Stokes wrote,

While some non-union companies do participate in apprentice programs through industry organizations, union-affiliated companies still have a decided advantage in meeting the requirements of this new bill. This is a blatant ploy to guarantee that union companies will win all county bids. . . .

Using the council’s authority to prevent non-union contractors from even attempting to participate in county projects is an egregious misuse of power. It is bad enough that this will increase costs to taxpayers, but the use of government for political favoritism is simply indefensible and immoral.

Just as it was two years ago, this type of legislation still appears to be a naked attempt by elected officials to please a powerful special interest.

Law should facilitate open access, such that access to public institutions is not contingent on personal relationships and political connections. Law should be structured to apply to everyone equally. By favoring unionized contractors over non-unionized contractors, this bill fails in providing a neutral rule. It reeks of cronyism, and it is the sort of thing Saint Louisans are right to be upset about.

The post Union Cronyism and the Board of Aldermen appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Members of the advisory group are studying the airport to decide if the Aviation Department should build the new $1.2 billion terminal they want. Those lessons have been presented by, well, the Aviation Department. But the advisory group wants to get an independent point of view, so it is seeking a consultant. Those interested are to apply through, who else, the Aviation Department.

This might be excusable were it not just the latest in a series of events demonstrating that the advisory group is not really expected to tell Mayor Sly James anything he doesn’t want to hear. Consider the following:

• The appointed head of the advisory group built airports for a living, including the current MCI.
• The mayor has said, while flanked by the group’s leaders, that anyone who opposes a new terminal is uninformed [July 9 Kansas City Star, story taken down].
• The City Council told the Aviation Department to go ahead with its plans while the advisory group meets.
• Proponents of the new airport spent at least $117,000 on public relations consulting and yet refuse to speak in public about their plans.
• One member of the advisory committee works for an economic development council headed by the Aviation Department’s administrator.
• The advisory group began its series of meetings by removing opponents at the very moment its leaders were saying the meetings were to be open.
• City Councilman Ed Ford said that Kansas City is going to get a new terminal regardless of what voters think.

The advisory group will continue its meetings well into 2014 with no end in sight. No one knows what their decision will be, but it’s clear that any information they receive will either be gathered by the Aviation Department or those it approves, such as the so-called independent consultant.

The post The Airport’s Self-Dealing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Saint Louis County Council passed, and County Executive Charlie Dooley signed, a bill that will prohibit non-union construction contractors from participating in all but the smallest county projects. Two members of the council’s Democrat majority who voted for the bill, Chairman Mike O’Mara and Patrick Dolan, are affiliated with unions that will directly benefit from this rank favoritism. At a minimum (here, the barest of minimums), they should have recused themselves from the vote.

The new law lays down several new requirements on county construction bidders. Of course, it does not specifically say the bids and contracts are “union-only” because that would be illegal. Instead, it mandates a requirement that will legally accomplish the same goal. The new ordinance requires that bidders offer apprentice-training programs that are generally found in union shops. For all practical purposes, the only way a contractor or company can offer this type of program — and be allowed to participate in county bids — is to become a union shop. It would be an extreme burden for the typical independent, non-union company to participate in the apprentice program. Whatever that burden may be, the county council has no business mandating it.

While some non-union companies do participate in apprentice programs through industry organizations, union-affiliated companies still have a decided advantage in meeting the requirements of this new bill. This is a blatant ploy to guarantee that union companies will win all county bids.

The non-union shops will now not win any bids, and likely will not participate in the bid process either. This will hurt taxpayers. Limiting the number of potential bidders can only have one effect: raising overall prices. Researchers at the Beacon Hill Institute found that Project-Labor Agreements (PLAs), another method of union-favoring project bidding, raised costs to taxpayers by 27 percent over non-PLA projects (which included many non-union bidders). This new law for Saint Louis County will likely have a similar result.

Using the council’s authority to prevent non-union contractors from even attempting to participate in county projects is an egregious misuse of power. It is bad enough that this will increase costs to taxpayers, but the use of government for political favoritism is simply indefensible and immoral.

State government need not allow this. Local governments are creatures of states, and the residents of Saint Louis County deserve for the state to correct this legislation. State government should quickly address this practice and prohibit local governments from favoring unions in the bidding process. (To be clear, local governments should not be allowed to discriminate against unions and union contractors, either.) We have a system of checks and balances to address exactly this type of unbalanced legislation. Unfortunately, the first option — a county executive veto — failed. Higher levels of government or the circuit courts need to correct this unseemly example of crony government.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Shame on Saint Louis County Council for Union Cronyism appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

How narrow of a private interest? Last Wednesday, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released new data showing that of all construction labor, only 13.2 percent is unionized, a drop from 14 percent last year, and a near-record low. Put another way, Saint Louis County rewrote its “responsible bidder” definitions to protect the one-eighth of the national construction industry that is unionized, leaving the vast super-majority of labor —which is non-union — basically in the lurch for county contracts. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch‘s Dave Nicklaus reported, union rolls in the state dropped by 51,000 members over the last year, putting overall Missouri union enrollment at “8.9 percent [of the workforce], down from 10.9 percent in 2011.” That fits the national trend lines.

Saint Louis County is trying to direct more money to fewer people, and the special interest nature of the change in the law is accentuated by last week’s construction employment data. Saint Louis County officials should reconsider their decision.

The post An Impromptu Follow-Up To ‘Responsible Bidder’ Blog Series appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The county’s apprenticeship requirement, which I discussed yesterday, is onerous enough, but the “no independent contractors for on-site work” requirement makes the intent of the ordinance — to advantage union labor — all the more explicit. In fact, Saint Louis County’s new regulations may actually hurt many small Saint Louis businesses that are not unionized. Adolphus M. Pruitt, of the St. Louis American, offered this blistering response to the ordinance late last month (the whole thing is worth reading):

Additionally, the bill forbids independent contractors from County construction worksites, specifically those who are self-employed. Most African-American truckers who own their own trucks operate as “independent contractors” and thus are forbidden from working on County worksites.

The bidding process is intended to get taxpayers the best deal for their money, not guarantee a special interest seller special privileges over another interest. Union and non-union labor should have to compete on even terms with one another, and the St. Louis County Council was wrong to give unions this sort of preferential treatment in a process meant to protect the buyer’s interests, not a seller’s. Taxpayers deserve better than this.

The post Part Two: ‘Responsible Bidder’ Does Not Mean ‘Union-Only’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As articulated in the legal treatise Antieau on Local Government:

[L]ocal government officials are not limited to the quality and suitability of the article to be provided but can consider the bidder’s experience, skill, ability, business judgment, financial situation, integrity, honesty, possession of the facilities necessary to perform the contract, previous conduct in similar contracts, reputation and record for reliability, as well as any other factors reasonably relevant to a bidder’s successful performance if awarded the contract.

Antieau notes that at least one court has found that “discretion exercised in choosing the lowest responsible bidder must be based upon substantial difference in quality or adaptability.” Taken altogether, these observations make clear that contractors of similar talent, reliability and quality should be considered on basically even terms in a “responsible bidder” legal construction. If a contractor can do a job reliably and well, the real distinguishing mark should be the price.

But in Saint Louis County, this may no longer be the case. The county’s new ordinance requires that for a construction contractor to qualify as a “responsible bidder,” he or she must “participate in or maintain their own Department of Labor-approved apprentice program for each craft which the firm employs and have active, registered apprentices for each program.” The law further requires that “all on-site employees on the project will be employees and that there will be no use of independent contractors or ‘leased employees’ for on-site work.”

“Apprenticeship programs” are almost always an artifact of union membership. Very few non-union shops “participate in or maintain” such programs, let alone always have “active, registered apprentices for each program.” The latter requirement of “active apprentices” has nothing to do with responsible bids, but it does have everything to do with keeping non-union contractors out. Which, of course, is why it was included. The county’s move will affect all sorts of small businesses, as the St. Louis American‘s Adolphus M. Pruitt noted last month.

The bill restricts non-union contractors from bidding on County projects, thus prohibiting any minority-owned general or prime contractor from County construction work. The bill restricts contractors who don’t have active apprentices. The strange thing about this is that most unions will profess that they are not accepting apprentices. … And the number of minority apprentices active in their programs is dismal.

That is especially bad news in today’s terrible economy. I will explore the “independent contractor” aspect in Part Two tomorrow.

The post Part One: ‘Responsible Bidder’ Does Not Mean ‘Union-Only’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.