# RMEF confirms bid for the Expo



## dryflyelk (Aug 24, 2009)

This is great news for utah sportsmen.

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFConfirmsUtahExpoBid.aspx


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Interesting little twist from the UDWR: From dryflyelk's link above...

"This week the Utah DWR confirmed receipt of RMEF's application. The DWR also informed RMEF of a* new request for proposal (RFP) process that will be implemented for the first time to select the conservation organization that will administer the expo permits in conjunction with their convention and expo event.* RMEF is awaiting details and instructions from the department related to this process."


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Interesting little twist from the UDWR: From dryflyelk's link above...
> 
> "This week the Utah DWR confirmed receipt of RMEF's application. The DWR also informed RMEF of a* new request for proposal (RFP) process that will be implemented for the first time to select the conservation organization that will administer the expo permits in conjunction with their convention and expo event.* RMEF is awaiting details and instructions from the department related to this process."


What does this mean exactly?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I sincerely hope it doesn't mean they are changing the process after-the-fact in order to allow a revised bid from another group that would be competitive with this one.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> I sincerely hope it doesn't mean they are changing the process after-the-fact in order to allow a revised bid from another group that would be competitive with this one.


Would it surprise you? I think RMEF obviously has the best bid, they better not be side stepping for SFW now. Investigation time if they are, for the DWR and SFW.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

stillhunterman said:


> Interesting little twist from the UDWR: From dryflyelk's link above...
> 
> "This week the Utah DWR confirmed receipt of RMEF's application. The DWR also informed RMEF of a* new request for proposal (RFP) process that will be implemented for the first time to select the conservation organization that will administer the expo permits in conjunction with their convention and expo event.* RMEF is awaiting details and instructions from the department related to this process."


I wonder if this new process was developed before or after RMEF's application was received! There was a deadline was there not?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I swear if they're beginning the process of sneaking them in the back door it can't just happen with no push back. 

It's so obvious RMEF came in with a proposal that is undeniably the best offer. SFW couldn't have even come close if they tried. Turning there back on this great opportunity with RMEF would prove the corruption involved in the expo, the DWR, and our wildlife system.


----------



## dryflyelk (Aug 24, 2009)

The proposal obviously makes the current deal sound very poor in comparison. For so many years we've heard SFW say, "well if this is so great a deal, who else is there who will take it on? Nobody?"

Well guess what? We got our wish. RMEF has stepped up and made a proposal that appears to blow the socks off of anything we've seen here before. I'm guessing that this took everybody who was satisfied with the status quo at SFW and the DWR off guard, so they are now scrambling to let SFW put a better foot forward with the new RFP process that magically appeared.

The cries of "nobody can do it cheaper or better!" are quickly being quieted.

Bravo, RMEF. Bravo.


----------



## Mtnbeer (Jul 15, 2012)

As someone who has gone through the RFP process with DWR, IMO, this works in RMEF's favor, as long as they put the effort and do a smart job presenting their benefits in their bid package. By going through the RFP process, this actually takes the decision-making process for the Expo contract out of the boards' hands and puts it into the hands of the contracts specialists, who in my experience, handle things pretty fairly and systematically.

I really have a hard time believing that SFW/MDF can offer the incentives that RMEF provides (concerts and other activities to go along with the expo), even if they match RMEF's offer of returning 100% of the dollars.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Don't get all excited yet. I deal in RFP's all the time and I can assure you an RFP can be written in such a manner that it will exclude those you don't want to win. The RFP will tell you if this is a corrupt process or fair and open.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> I wonder if this new process was developed before or after RMEF's application was received! There was a deadline was there not?


Good question Lee. I don't know when the new process was developed, but would like to find out. Yes indeed, there was a deadline, and RMEF delivered their proposal just in time.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

R657-55 is the Administrative Rule that controls the award of the Expo Tag contract. R657-55-4 is the section that describes the process set out by which the DWR by conservation groups may apply for the the Expo Permit contract. See http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4 Subsection 3 sets forth the application period of 8/1 to 9/1. Subsection 4 describes the information that must be included in an application for the permits. Subsection 6 set forth the factors the DWR will consider in making a recommendation to the Wildlife Board as to who should receive the contract. And subsection 7 sets forth the factors the Wildlife Board will consider in determining which group will receive the contract. This is the DWR's own rule that was just amended at the recent December RAC meetings and the January 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting. There is absolultely no mention of a formal RFP process. If the DWR wanted to use a formal RFP process then it should have included that process in its recent rule amendment.

If you have concerns about the DWR's recent decision to move to a new RFP process after RMEF submitted its application as explained in the RMEF press release, make your voices known to the DWR, the Wildlife Board and your politicians.

-Hawkeye-


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

problem is, the sfw bid includes knee pads.


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

If RMEF loses this, we (sportsman) need to let our voice be heard with the governor, our local representatives, commissioners, etc. We need to demand to know why the State of Utah would give up an enormous sum of money in order to support one conservation group over another, and not let that money go back into our wildlife resources. If RMEF loses out on this, there is undoubtedly back door deals being made and questions will need to be answered. It will be time for complete transparency, none of this "summary transparency" that was tried to be passed off to us previously.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

gwailow said:


> If RMEF loses this, we (sportsman) need to let our voice be heard with the governor, our local representatives, commissioners, etc. We need to demand to know why the State of Utah would give up an enormous sum of money in order to support one conservation group over another, and not let that money go back into our wildlife resources. If RMEF loses out on this, there is undoubtedly back door deals being made and questions will need to be answered. It will be time for complete transparency, none of this "summary transparency" that was tried to be passed off to us previously.


Start pressuring now by contacting them before it happens. Pressure the DWR, governor, and wildlife board not to use this backdoor bull crap to sneak SFW in after the fact.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Dirty, dirty, dirty move by the DWR and Wildlife Board. I wish I could say that I was surprised.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

I have my pitchfork at the ready. 

-()/>-


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

So what is this magical first time change? I've emailed but have yet to get a reply anyone else had any luck?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Thought I would post what Randy Newberg posted on his site regarding the expo and changes made to the process, he sits on the RMEF board, seems the DWR is looking to change things for unknown reasons:


"""As most of you on this site know, I sit on the RMEF Board of Directors. A lot of you have emailed me with questions and given the confidentiality requirements that come with sitting on the Board, I have had to point you to the RMEF Headquarters. While I was out filming in Wyoming last week, RMEF issued a press release that confirmed that RMEF did submit a bid and some details of that bid.

There is now a lot of conjecture about why RMEF submitted a bid, what RMEF plans to do if awarded the bid, and a host of other things that seem intended to cast doubt over the motives of the RMEF bid for the Expo in Utah.

We have been working on this for the better part of a year. It was something we decided to do because we feel that the wildlife and the hunters of Utah could benefit by having all of these raffle tag proceeds directed to wildlife, whether RMEF hosted the Expo or some other organization made an even better proposal. If the final outcome is that wildlife and hunters benefit from the money that is being raised, that is a good outcome, no matter who is awarded the Expo.

RMEF engaged expert legal counsel to assist with preparing the bid. We examined every aspect of the Utah Statutes that relate to how the Expo operates, how the bid process works, criteria that must be met to be eligible, and all other aspects to make sure the RMEF bid was crafted as requested. The bid was hand delivered to the UT Division of Wildlife Resources the afternoon of the deadline that is identified in UT statute and a signed receipt was provided to the law firm.

Subsequent to RMEF submitting that bid, plenty has occurred behind the scenes, some of which DWR is requesting be kept confidential. The new idea of a Request for Proposals (RFP) comes as a complete surprise to RMEF and to the law firm hired to assist us with the bid. That RFP is not provided for in statute. There is no administrative rule that we are aware of that allows DWR to change the manner by which the process is awarded. Maybe such administrative rule exists and we are not aware of that.

Rumors have been floating around that RMEF will get the tags and move the Expo. Not sure who would start such a rumor, or why (well, I have a pretty good idea on both), but that is completely false. RMEF plans to host their annual convention in Salt Lake City for as long as the Expo contract would be awarded to RMEF.

Rumors have been started that RMEF will use the proceeds to purchase land outside of Utah. Again, another completely false rumor. Read the RMEF proposal and it states that 100% of the raffle proceeds will be given back to the state of Utah for habitat and access.

If there are other questions, please feel free to ask. Now that RMEF has issued their release, I am at liberty to answer questions that will clarify and concerns and hopefully dispel some of the rumors that seem to be growing by the day.

Most importantly, I hope the folks of Utah will ask their elected and appointed leaders to follow the statutes that exist. And whatever the final decision on who will be awarded the Expo contract, request that the leaders do what is best of Utah wildlife and Utah hunters. Putting more money on the ground is the reason why RMEF would go through the effort and cost to prepare and submit this bid. Hopefully that will be the outcome, no matter which organization is awarded the Expo."""

Thanks for all the interest in this topic.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

I doubt RMEF will win, remember folks your good and (dis)honest governor appointed the CEO of SFW to the wildlife board....ahhh the plot thickens. Also our current governor has a bad habit of picking who he wants to win contracts then paying off the losers with your tax dollars so they will quietly go away.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> I doubt RMEF will win, remember folks your good and (dis)honest governor appointed the CEO of SFW to the wildlife board....ahhh the plot thickens. Also our current governor has a bad habit of picking who he wants to win contracts then paying off the losers with your tax dollars so they will quietly go away.


All we can do is apply pressure by voicing our opinions.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I think all of you need to slow down on the conspiracy theories...I can't see how the DWR wouldn't gain by having RMEF have the banquet. Wasn't is stated that RMEF would return a lot more money to the DWR for conservation than SFW? Wouldn't this alone give the DWR more reason to have RMEF host the expo? I think many of you are jumping to conclusions before you have any facts...

....maybe the DWR is trying to cover their bases legally before making a switch? Just a thought...


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> All we can do is apply pressure by voicing our opinions.


I would highly recommend contacting both Salt Lake newspapers and see if anyone wants to run with the story...showing that SFW has been keeping most of the money and that RMEF now wants to take it over and give it all back. If it could hit the newswire that would provide tremendous pressure.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> I think all of you need to slow down on the conspiracy theories...I can't see how the DWR wouldn't gain by having RMEF have the banquet. Wasn't is stated that RMEF would return a lot more money to the DWR for conservation than SFW? Wouldn't this alone give the DWR more reason to have RMEF host the expo? I think many of you are jumping to conclusions before you have any facts...
> 
> ....maybe the DWR is trying to cover their bases legally before making a switch? Just a thought...


You need to understand that the DWR isn't pulling the strings here. The governor clearly is. Go back to the bid process for the highway in Lehi. One contractor had won and were told they had won. The governor then stepped in and made the highway department change the selection criteria so a different contractor would win the billion dollar project, AFTER the bid process and selection criteria had been made public. So they changed the rules after the company they wanted to win didn't win. Then they had to pay the company that didn't win mega millions to hush them up and keep them from suing the state. No conspiracy theories, just facts that have come out in the newspapers etc.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> You need to understand that the DWR isn't pulling the strings here. The governor clearly is. Go back to the bid process for the highway in Lehi. One contractor had won and were told they had won. The governor then stepped in and made the highway department change the selection criteria so a different contractor would win the billion dollar project, AFTER the bid process and selection criteria had been made public. So they changed the rules after the company they wanted to win didn't win. Then they had to pay the company that didn't win mega millions to hush them up and keep them from suing the state. No conspiracy theories, just facts that have come out in the newspapers etc.


Bologna...all you are doing is passing conspiracy theories. The Governor's choice to the expo was made as soon as he appointed members to the Wildlife Board. The Wildlife Board ultimately makes the decision of who will have the expo....not the Governor. The highway decision that you are talking about has nothing to do with who will run the expo. My bet is that the DWR is simply covering all their bases by having RMEF file the RFP and preparing themselves for a possible switch. Once all the paperwork has been submitted and filed, the DWR will then submit their opinion of who should manage the expo to the Wildlife Board and the Wildlife Board will decide. The question is whether or not the WB will follow the DWR's recommendation or go against it. That's where politics may get involved...but, if conservation is the name of the game and the ultimate goal of the expo is to earn dollars for conservation, I can't see how the WB can go against RMEF unless SFW/MDF can pony up the same offer or a better one!


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> Bologna...all you are doing is passing conspiracy theories. The Governor's choice to the expo was made as soon as he appointed members to the Wildlife Board. The Wildlife Board ultimately makes the decision of who will have the expo....not the Governor. The highway decision that you are talking about has nothing to do with who will run the expo. My bet is that the DWR is simply covering all their bases by having RMEF file the RFP and preparing themselves for a possible switch. Once all the paperwork has been submitted and filed, the DWR will then submit their opinion of who should manage the expo to the Wildlife Board and the Wildlife Board will decide. The question is whether or not the WB will follow the DWR's recommendation or go against it. That's where politics may get involved...but, if conservation is the name of the game and the ultimate goal of the expo is to earn dollars for conservation, I can't see how the WB can go against RMEF unless SFW/MDF can pony up the same offer or a better one!


Who will run the expo is a contract with the state...the highway project was a contract with the state..see any similarities?

What the DWR WANTS is irrelevant to what the GOVERNOR wants. The GOVERNOR appointed the CEO of SFW to the Wildlife Board...see any conflicts of interest there? I can't paint it any clearer for you. I have been involved in hundreds and perhaps thousands of RFP's (I am currently sitting at my desk working on 3 RFP's right now) and government bids in my career and I can ASSURE you, whoever the GOVERNOR or other CONTROLLING INTERESTS want to win will win REGARDLESS of the advertised bid and bid process. I have lost government bids where I met every criteria called for and was at least 10% under the next lowest bidder because they wanted the other company to win. And frankly the only reason I still have to work for a living is that I was screwed out of winning a 150+ million RFP that would have let me retire at 25 years old with over 10M in the bank....thanks to a government entity that will remain nameless.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

wyoming2utah said:


> Bologna...all you are doing is passing conspiracy theories. The Governor's choice to the expo was made as soon as he appointed members to the Wildlife Board. The Wildlife Board ultimately makes the decision of who will have the expo....not the Governor. The highway decision that you are talking about has nothing to do with who will run the expo. My bet is that the DWR is simply covering all their bases by having RMEF file the RFP and preparing themselves for a possible switch. Once all the paperwork has been submitted and filed, the DWR will then submit their opinion of who should manage the expo to the Wildlife Board and the Wildlife Board will decide. The question is whether or not the WB will follow the DWR's recommendation or go against it. That's where politics may get involved...but, if conservation is the name of the game and the ultimate goal of the expo is to earn dollars for conservation, I can't see how the WB can go against RMEF unless SFW/MDF can pony up the same offer or a better one!


I appreciate what you're dong, really. And I also love shooting down conspiracy theories but I don't think it is necessary for the DWR to "cover their bases" in order to switch the expo to RMEF when under the statutorily required process RMEF should handily win. The bases were already covered! The only thing that would logically spur a change after the fact is someone scrambling to get a second bite at the apple in light of the information of how good the RMEF bid is.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

johnnycake said:


> I appreciate what you're dong, really. And I also love shooting down conspiracy theories but I don't think it is necessary for the DWR to "cover their bases" in order to switch the expo to RMEF when under the statutorily required process RMEF should handily win. The bases were already covered! The only thing that would logically spur a change after the fact is someone scrambling to get a second bite at the apple in light of the information of how good the RMEF bid is.


Several things can happen in that regard, the selection process can be modified or totally changed as it was in the Lehi project and/or it can actually be re-bid. For no reason at all they can re-bid the project and of course by that time the other bidder would be made aware of RMEF bid. I had one project I bid on 5 years in a row and lost. When an employee of the successful bidder came to work for our company he told me that the bidder would give him my bid after I turned it in and allow them an extension unbeknownst to anyone. They simply took my bid and quoted one penny less on every line item and were awarded the bid.....why, because the owner of their company and the person running the organization that was bidding out were childhood friends. Illegal, yes, but they never got caught and that was the end of that story.

If anyone believes that RMEF has this sewn up and will win because of their bid they are living in la la land. They may win but I am telling you that whoever the governor or controlling entity wants to win will win, regardless of their bid. And the governor personally appointed the CEO of SFW to the Wildlife Board...who makes the ultimate decision...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> The Wildlife Board ultimately makes the decision of who will have the expo.... The question is whether or not the WB will follow the DWR's recommendation or go against it. That's where politics may get involved...but, if conservation is the name of the game and the ultimate goal of the expo is to earn dollars for conservation, I can't see how the WB can go against RMEF unless SFW/MDF can pony up the same offer or a better one!


This is all true but..........Considering the current composition of the WB includes about 50% current or former SFW bigwigs, how comfortable can we be that the WB will render an unbiased decision?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> This is all true but..........Considering the current composition of the WB includes about 50% current or former SFW bigwigs, how comfortable can we be that the WB will render an unbiased decision?


Now, we are getting somewhere. THIS is the problem....we only have 1/2 chance of the WB making a fair decision. That's why I said that the Governor's choice on this matter was made when he appointed WB members.

This, however, still doesn't answer the question as to why the DWR has changed the process for applying....what incentive do they have for doing this? Again, the DWR stands to gain if RMEF gets the bid.

Personally, I don't care if RMEF or SFW gets the bid as long as more money is being given back to wildlife than what we had in the past...and that the winner of the bid is the one who ultimately gives back the most. That's the bottom line here....the conservation expo is supposed to be a means of getting as much money for wildlife as possible. Obviously, the entity that runs the expo should be the one that can give back the most money! Anything that goes against this, violates the whole idea of the expo. And, I still believe that auction tags violate the spirit of the idea of the North American Conservation Model and the idea of equity...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> My bet is that the DWR is simply covering all their bases by having RMEF file the RFP and preparing themselves for a possible switch.


If you are in fact correct, and they are simply "covering all their bases" by doing this, then the DWR is the dumbest bunch of folks this side of Hillary Clinton's private email server. I often tell people that when you want to "cover all your bases" and make sure things are on the up and up, that the very best thing to do is NOT to follow the laws/rules in place, and change the rules after the fact. That generally goes over really well with all involved. It never raises any questions.



wyoming2utah said:


> I can't see how the WB can go against RMEF unless SFW/MDF can pony up the same offer or a better one!


This is the BIGGEST problem with this whole cluster...there shouldn't be a chance for anyone to "pony up the same offer or a better one!" The bidding process had ended. Only those qualifying bids received by the DWR prior to the deadline should be able to be legally reviewed. Not some new "equal or better" offer. That is why we have laws regarding these deadlines...to prevent this very thing from happening. Unless the "bases" you are trying to "cover" is SFW's pocket book...then you simply change the rules and allow for a second bite at the apple.

johnnycake hits the nail on the head. If (and that is a HUGE if) the DWR cared about doing what was right for Utah wildlife and cared about following the rules in that "covering of their bases" then they would have simply followed the rules in place and let the best bid win. Sorry W2U, not even you can justify what was done here as being right. By no means do I think that DWR biologists are out tampering with the system. But there are definitely politics involved here. I've seen the DWR (not just the Wildlife Board) cave to politics before and screw the people. This seems to be the same type of situation, only screwing wildlife instead of people this time. Being a function of the government subject to political pressure, unfortunately they don't have the option to just do what is right and move on here.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

"Benefit of the doubt" is something that is earned, and in this instance has not been by the DWR. Sadly, I think they are even more beholden to political pressure from organizations with a strong foothold in wildlife politics in Utah than even the most anti-SFW crowd would like to admit. 

They have a chance to do the right thing and honor the statutory requirements for the bidding process without allowing for backroom dealing and re-bids. I hope they take advantage of that and allow RMEF to take over the expo duties and better fulfill the expressly designated purposes of the expo and expo tags.


----------



## curlycoyote (Sep 11, 2015)

This has been put on the F&G site.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1723-expo-permits.html

Will someone explain to me way RMEF was not notified of a RFP proposal, they were at the meeting telling all the orgs. about the open bid. Seems like they let the orgs. know last Oct. and they could not get it done in time :shock:. Something just does not smell right with this.

Also can RMEF put in a different proposal now that it has been extended?


----------



## neverdrawn (Jan 3, 2009)

curlycoyote said:


> This has been put on the F&G site.
> 
> http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1723-expo-permits.html


Wow, looks as if the spin doctors have been hard at work!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

So they've known this was coming for over a year, and they couldn't pull things together by a proposal deadline they setup? Or was the process not pulled together in time so there would be time for favorite organizations to adjust their offers once they knew what was at the table?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I think it's time the DWR was asked some questions about all of this, here's a list of contact links for various news sites:

KSL News: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=205

KUTV: [email protected]

ABC4: http://www.good4utah.com/contact/news

Salt lake tribune: [email protected]

Fox 13: [email protected]
Deseret news: [email protected]


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Not sure if it has been said, but re-reading this it seems like RMEF submitted their bid the final day because the wanted their bid kept private. Only an assumption, but maybe they believe they can't trust the DWR a whole lot. If that is the case, they are starting to look correct. By now SFW has probably read their bid cover to cover.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Not sure if it has been said, but re-reading this it seems like RMEF submitted their bid the final day because the wanted their bid kept private. Only an assumption, but maybe they believe they can't trust the DWR a whole lot. If that is the case, they are starting to look correct. By now SFW has probably read their bid cover to cover.


Smart bidders always submit the last day in the last hour if possible. Keeps your bid out of the hands of those who shouldn't have it.

Like I have said on here numerous times, I have dealt with hundreds if not thousands of RFP's for government and private entities. I see this type of shenanigan all the time. I give RMEF a 1 in 1000 chance of getting it, at best. This thing smells set up and pre determined winner from the get go. Keep voting for the same governor and keep getting the same cronyism.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> If the DWR cared about doing what was right for Utah wildlife and cared about following the rules in that "covering of their bases" then they would have simply followed the rules in place and let the best bid win. Sorry W2U, not even you can justify what was done here as being right. By no means do I think that DWR biologists are out tampering with the system. But there are definitely politics involved here. I've seen the DWR (not just the Wildlife Board) cave to politics before and screw the people. This seems to be the same type of situation, only screwing wildlife instead of people this time. Being a function of the government subject to political pressure, unfortunately they don't have the option to just do what is right and move on here.


Oh come on...surely you can see past your own skepticism and distrust to see why the DWR would want to do an RFP? It makes perfect sense to me: the past few years the scrutiny on SFW has grown and people's desire to follow the money trail generated from the expo has grown. Sportsmen and sporstmen organizations have increasingly asked for more transparency as far as SFW and the expo have been concerned. And, a little controversy was drummed up in the past when SFW handed the DWR a large check at a WB meeting immediately prior to the new deer management. So, what does all this have to do with the RFP? I can surmise (kind of like all of you guys speculating) that the DWR is creating more transparency in the decision making process--as RFP's are designed to do--and taking the proposal decision out of their own hands and turning it over to "multiple Utah state agencies". But, I am not so quick to jump to conspiracy conclusions as the rest of you are....


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Looks like the RMEF followed the established criteria for application in good faith. That the DWR wants to change this after the fact screams lawsuit to me. 

I doubt RMEF wants to sue them over the application process, as they want a friendly partnership going forward for conservation... but the DWR should be strongly reminded a lawsuit is possible.

-DallanC


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Oh come on...surely you can see past your own skepticism and distrust to see why the DWR would want to do an RFP? It makes perfect sense to me: the past few years the scrutiny on SFW has grown and people's desire to follow the money trail generated from the expo has grown. Sportsmen and sporstmen organizations have increasingly asked for more transparency as far as SFW and the expo have been concerned. And, a little controversy was drummed up in the past when SFW handed the DWR a large check at a WB meeting immediately prior to the new deer management. So, what does all this have to do with the RFP? I can surmise (kind of like all of you guys speculating) that the DWR is creating more transparency in the decision making process--as RFP's are designed to do--and taking the proposal decision out of their own hands and turning it over to "multiple Utah state agencies". But, I am not so quick to jump to conspiracy conclusions as the rest of you are....


Really, because history of the DWR and SFW says different. I mean the hundreds of thousands that have been handed out for wolf and sage grouse lobbying to their SFW buddies was well spent and accounted for right? RMEF is blind sided by this and even posted that they feel this put them at a disadvantage now. They aren't looking good at this point, and hiding the process isn't helping. Why can't they come out and actually explain what's going on? Because what's going on isn't right.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr Newberg posted this on monster muleys:



> Because state statute says nothing about an RFP. The RFP is something that came about after RMEF submitted their proposal by the deadline outlined in state statute. The state law states a deadline of September 1st, with not a single reference to an RFP process. We hired attorneys to advise us and we followed their advice that was based on state law.
> 
> I read the link posted on the DWR website today. All it says is that the RFP process "was mentioned" at some meetings. Not sure how it works in Utah, but I suspect a lot of things get mentioned at meetings. Does that make the "mentioned" idea more relevant than state statute, because the idea "got mentioned?" According to the law firm that assisted with preparation of our application, the "mention" of an RFP process does not supersede state statute.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

I think some of us need to step back and quit looking at this through the lense of dislike for SFW and the history of the convention. There are a number of facts that point to the RFP being legit, even if it has been handled poorly.

1. The expo and its associated tags have never been open to a bidding process before. I agree that this is not a good thing and has played out poorly for everyone involved. 

2. An RFP is not only a common practice, but when the government or government agencies are involved, almost always required. In fact, most require no less than three bids. The RFP, as pointed out in the press release, is not coming out of left field. It has been discussed and on multiple occasions for at least the last 12 months.

3. The purpose of an RFP is to create a open, documented and transparent process that identifies key criteria that those bidding will be judged on. This should, in fact, alleviate any concerns over unfairness and force SFW/MDF to also be open and transparent with their bids.

4. RMEF was associated with the banquet early on. I don't know all of the details, but they did not leave the banquet on good terms. I don't know who the fault lies on, but I'm not willing to give RMEF a free pass and throw SFW/MDF under the bus as the same time. My guess is all 3 organizations carry some of the blame.

5. RMEF is playing a PR game and many of you are buying it hook, line and sinker. They presented their bid and and chose to disclose two pieces of information as if that would be the basis of the decision by the DWR. I am glad to hear they are willing to give all application fees back. I am happy to hear that they will bring their convention here. But, how well does their overall bid meet the criteria that the DWR has set for the expo. I have no idea and no one on this forum does either. What does SFW/MDF's bid look like? I have no idea and neither does anyone on this forum. Thankfully, the DWR is instituting an RFP.

If the bidding process indicates that RMEF's bid is the best, then by all means give them the expo, but let the process play out before passing judgement.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Per a GRAMA sent to DWR on Sept 2 by Gordy Bell, a UWC Board member, followed by another sent yesterday, he received the following response:

*"From: *Martin Bushman
*Subject: Re: GRAMA Request*
*Date: *September 18, 2015 at 10:02:47 AM MDT
*To: *Gordy Bell

Mr. Bell:

I apologize the (sic) the delay in responding to your request for information on the 2017 hunting expo contract. I cannot provide you a copy of the new expo RFP at this point since it is not finalized. We expect it will be completed in the near future where it will then be published and available to all who wish to read it. The 2017 expo contract will be awarded through the state RFP process administered by the Division of Purchasing and General Services. Obviously, we have not yet received proposals in response to the RFP, but we anticipate one or more will be submitted once the RFP is published.

Thank you for your patience.

Marty Bushman

Martin B. Bushman
Natural Resources Division
Utah Attorney General's Office
1594 West North Temple, #2110
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Tel: (801) 538-4703
Fax: (801) 538-4709
E-mail: [email protected] "


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

> 2. An RFP is not only a common practice, but when the government or government agencies are involved, almost always required. In fact, most require no less than three bids. The RFP, as pointed out in the press release, is not coming out of left field. It has been discussed and on multiple occasions for at least the last 12 months.


According to meeting minutes, it has not.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

elkfromabove said:


> Per a GRAMA sent to DWR on Sept 2 by Gordy Bell, a UWC Board member, followed by another sent yesterday, he received the following response:
> 
> *"From: *Martin Bushman
> *Subject: Re: GRAMA Request*
> ...


Glad SFW will have a second chance to match the offer or be given time to come up with a slight edge. RMEF could still bring attendance they will never match, as well as revenue they could never match. RMEF brought the offer to the table at the last minute for a reason, and this was it. Now they are sidestepping around their own process. The deadline was the 1st, and the deadline should have been the 1st.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Dahlmer said:


> I think some of us need to step back and quit looking at this through the lense of dislike for SFW and the history of the convention. There are a number of facts that point to the RFP being legit, even if it has been handled poorly.
> 
> 1. The expo and its associated tags have never been open to a bidding process before. I agree that this is not a good thing and has played out poorly for everyone involved.
> 
> ...


I am REALLY curious to know just exactly how many RFP's you have been involved in...you know, that you bid on, helped write, helped evaluate etc....realllllly curious.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The deadline was the 1st, and the deadline should have been the 1st.


 Or ALL parties should have be notified of the delay in a timely manner BEFORE the deadline!


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Dahlmer said:


> I think some of us need to step back and quit looking at this through the lense of dislike for SFW and the history of the convention. There are a number of facts that point to the RFP being legit, even if it has been handled poorly.
> 
> 1. The expo and its associated tags have never been open to a bidding process before. I agree that this is not a good thing and has played out poorly for everyone involved.
> 
> ...


I understand what you are saying Dahlmer. However, I believe the express purpose(s) of the expo are listed clearly in the statute. The statute for the expo also does not make any mention of an RFP process. The most disconcerting thing is that it is not part of the statute, and also that there is no mention of the RFP in the RAC minutes according to RMEF's lawyers. The only thing that I have heard in reference to the expo from the RACs was the push for the contract to be allowed to be renewed automatically up to 10 years instead of allowing for re-bidding at 5.

I'm not ready to jump off a ledge, but I am seriously uncertain whether an RFP would have been required if RMEF had not submitted a bid and SFW/MDF had been the only ones to submit. The influence of these groups on Utah wildlife politics can't be understated, and while this may just be smoke instead of fire, I believe that we would be doing ourselves a huge disservice not to be skeptical of the events that are transpiring and demand answers.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

elkfromabove said:


> Or ALL parties should have be notified of the delay in a timely manner BEFORE the deadline!


How would they know though who would apply unless there was an "intent to file" requirement? As is, if they had a app policy change it should have first been approved as law, and subsequently listed on the official application requirements.

As is, neither of those things happened. RMEF is going to win this.

-DallanC


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

"(3) Conservation organizations may apply for the wildlife expo permit series by sending an application to the division between August 1 and September 1 of the year preceding the expiration of each wildlife exposition term, as provide in R657-55-4(1).

(4) Each application must include:

(a) the name, address and telephone number of the conservation organization;

(b) a description of the conservation organization's mission statement;

(c) the name of the president or other individual responsible for the administrative operations of the conservation organization; and

(d) a detailed business plan describing how the wildlife exposition will take place and how the wildlife expo permit drawing procedures will be carried out.

(5) An incomplete or incorrect application may be rejected.

(6) The division shall recommend to the Wildlife Board which conservation organization may receive the wildlife expo permit series based on:

(a) the business plan for the wildlife exposition and drawing procedures contained in the application; and

(b) the conservation organization's, including its constituent entities, ability, including past performance in marketing conservation permits under Rule R657-41, to effectively plan and complete the wildlife exposition.

(7) The Wildlife Board shall make the final assignment of the wildlife expo permit series based on the:

(a) division's recommendation;

(b) applicant conservation organization's commitment to use expo permit handling fee revenue to benefit protected wildlife in Utah;

(c) historical contribution of the applicant conservation organization, including its constituent entities, to the conservation of wildlife in Utah; and

(d) previous performance of the applicant conservation organization, including its constituent entities."(http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm)

Just for anyone that didn't know where to find this.....


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> But, I am not so quick to jump to conspiracy conclusions as the rest of you are....


This is a total crock of crap and you know it, Mr Hepworth. You are defending the DWR because that is what you do. You've never seen them do something you didn't agree with, or at the very least, defend publicly. Read your own post and see why the public that pays even a little attention to what is going on doesn't trust SFW, the Wildlife Board, or the DWR. You gave a wonderful and relevant reason on your own. And an RFP process is not any more transparent. The DWR's own press release says that no proposal will be made public until this group of unknown agencies that will decide this is presenting their recommendation to the Wildlife Board.

As far as I can tell, the DWR is violating the law by what they did. You can mention any changes you want in as many meetings as you can, but when the application process is laid out by statute and/or administrative rule, then that is the only legal process until that statute and/or administrative rule is changed. Any deviation from that process violates the law. As far as a I know, neither statute nor any administrative rule for this process has been changed.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Dahlmer said:


> 2. An RFP is not only a common practice, but when the government or government agencies are involved, almost always required. In fact, most require no less than three bids. The RFP, as pointed out in the press release, is not coming out of left field. It has been discussed and on multiple occasions for at least the last 12 months.


Up till now, I haven't followed this as closely as some of you but the above point has validity if true. This was basically the gist of that DWR posting/coomunication on their website. If it is as you and the DWR said, there should be plenty of documentary evidence that it has been discussed (prior to Sept 1) in meeting minutes or other notes.

Is there any?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> As far as I can tell, the DWR is violating the law by what they did. You can mention any changes you want in as many meetings as you can, but when the application process is laid out by statute and/or administrative rule, then that is the only legal process until that statute and/or administrative rule is changed. Any deviation from that process violates the law. As far as a I know, neither statute nor any administrative rule for this process has been changed.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your occupation allows you to make the above statement with a bit more certitude than the rest of us.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Catherder said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your occupation allows you to make the above statement with a bit more certitude than the rest of us.


I don't know about Vanilla's occupation, but as aa 3rd year law student his analysis of the statute seems pretty dead on


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

DallanC said:


> How would they know though who would apply unless there was an "intent to file" requirement? As is, if they had a app policy change it should have first been approved as law, and subsequently listed on the official application requirements.
> 
> As is, neither of those things happened. RMEF is going to win this.
> 
> -DallanC


No need to individually notify potential bidders, a simple public notification would suffice


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Think about how much more terrifying our whole state situation could be if everything(not expo specific) that was simply mentioned in the racs was automatically held as more valid than current statute.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

DallanC said:


> How would they know though who would apply unless there was an "intent to file" requirement? As is, if they had a app policy change it should have first been approved as law, and subsequently listed on the official application requirements.
> 
> As is, neither of those things happened. RMEF is going to win this.
> 
> -DallanC


 Good point! But I know that many, if not most or all, potential government bids are published in local/prominent newspapers and/or websites. I'm not sure how this one could have been announced, but announcing it after the fact has to be illegal somehow!


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

DallanC said:


> How would they know though who would apply unless there was an "intent to file" requirement? As is, if they had a app policy change it should have first been approved as law, and subsequently listed on the official application requirements.
> 
> As is, neither of those things happened. RMEF is going to win this.
> 
> -DallanC


I sure hope so - the more I see what SFW does, the more I dislike them. The collusion between DWR and SFW needs to go away. Definitely a mafia type relationship (just without the concrete galoshes!!)

Case in point, I know of a guy who just so happens to get the chance to "buy" a premium LE bull elk permit every year in a very premium quality area that we all have to compete for in the draw because of his affiliation with SFW...Not right for sure!


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

High Desert Elk said:


> I sure hope so - the more I see what SFW does, the more I dislike them. The collusion between DWR and SFW needs to go away. Definitely a mafia type relationship (just without the concrete galoshes!!)
> 
> Case in point, I know of a guy who just so happens to get the chance to "buy" a premium LE bull elk permit every year in a very premium quality area that we all have to compete for in the draw because of his affiliation with SFW...Not right for sure!


Just without the concrete galoshes? You have no idea! I can't speak for others, but they've certainly tried to put them on UWC! (But not so much any more 'cause we just didn't go away like they thought we would. :grin


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

elkfromabove said:


> Just without the concrete galoshes? You have no idea! I can't speak for others, but they've certainly tried to put them on UWC! (But not so much any more 'cause we just didn't go away like they thought we would. :grin


Figuratively yes! Realistically, no.:O||:


----------



## dryflyelk (Aug 24, 2009)

If you'd like to look through the meeting minutes or listen to the audio of the RAC meetings that the DWR mentioned in it's bulletin, you can find them here:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/board-rac/...rd-meeting-agendas-materials-and-minutes.html


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I will follow this closer. Looks like a rat, smells like a rat, it's usually a rat.


----------



## curlycoyote (Sep 11, 2015)

Just seen on another site that the local news has got wind of this and has made phone calls to all involved trying to get answers. From what it said they have not received any calls back.

Hope this crap becomes public and forces them to do the right thing. 

I still find it funny in the letter from the UDWR they did not mention SFW. Is that not who hands them the check with their chest all puffed out.


----------



## dryflyelk (Aug 24, 2009)

Gentlemen,

After speaking with a friend of mine who works in the gov't and is very familiar with these type of issues, he strongly suggested one thing:
we need to all contact our local state legislators.

The governor is somewhat bound in what he can and can't do. However, the local state legislators can and will get involved on these type of issues. They want to be able to have a platform and something like this could and should get a lot of traction. If it gets to their attention and is brought up on the floor in a session on the hill, things will get attention fast. That's also a great way to get the media to pay attention quickly.

Who should you contact?

Here's the link to find out who your local reps are. I'd strongly urge you to look them up for your area and write them an email explaining the situation and your feelings. Explain that this issue could (and is) costing taxpayers millions and also the effects it could have on wildlife.

http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp

Thank you!


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

If you live in Herriman and are in House District 52 your representative is John Knotwell. John is a good guy ( I worked for him for 2 years ). Send him a nice but factual email and he will certainly respect it and look into it. I am trying to see if we can meet for lunch soon to discuss it.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Because Thursday's Wildlife Board meeting dealt primarily with the Fishing Proclamation, Amy posted the link on the fishing forum, but you can go to that to hear the latest official update on the EXPO contract RFP. It's 9 minutes 26 seconds into the broadcast.

In addition to Greg's statement there, I had a chance to talk to Marty Bushman prior to the meeting and I asked him if there was any additional info he could give me beyond his response to Gordy Bell's GRAMA and he said that the RFP had to go beyond the Purchasing Office because of other issues. He didn't elaborate, but I also had an opportunity to eavesdrop on a conversation between Greg, Randy Dearth and another gentleman prior to the start of the meeting and it seems that there are other legal issues with other contracts between other Departments and/or entities. I didn't catch everything, but I do know there are issues of security regarding the EXPO and DWR websites. Apparently there have already been attempts to hack them for personal information on the EXPO draw applications and they want to make sure the RFP addresses that and any other issues I may not have heard on the eavesdrop. (I came into it in the middle of the conversation.)

In any case, the RFP went even beyond Purchasing, let alone the DWR. Greg's statement at the meeting assured us that the DWR has done (and did in a timely manner) their part in preparing the RFP and their intent was to receive the EXPO contract applications during the month of August, which they did. He didn't attempt to place blame for the delay, only that there's been one and they expect to receive the applications any time now, so they and the Wildlife Board can make a determination on the final outcome at the December (or possibly the January) Wildlife Board meeting.

Is or could a lawsuit be forthcoming? Maybe, but we'll have to wait a bit before we know who to sue and over what! 

FWIW, everyone at the meeting was as anxious to get through this as you and I, and nobody had much more information than you and I.


----------

