# EXPO Contract Decision



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

The Utah Wildlife Board has scheduled a special meeting for this Friday (12/18/2015) at 10 am, to review the recommendation from the evaluation committee and make a decision regarding which group(s) will receive the next Expo Tag contract. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2015-12-18_board_agenda.pdf If you cannot make it to the meeting, you can view the proceedings via the following link: 




Please come out and participate in the process. Show your support for RMEF or whatever group you choose to support. According to the Wildlife Board's agenda, the Wildlife Board will not be taking public comment on the issue. As a result, a 5 to 10 year contract will be awarded under this new formal RFP process, which was never presented to the RACs or the Wildlife Board for public input.

Let's hope the Wildlife Board gets it right and a huge thank you to RMEF for its commitment to conservation.


----------



## hazmat (Apr 23, 2009)

I got my fingers crossed for the rmef. But utah's political corruption I have a feeling is gonna show its ugly head


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

All I am going to say is that I have bid on hundreds if not over a thousand RFP's. In over 75% of the instances the winner was determined before the bids were formally opened. I have even had instances where my bid was given to a competitor to quote their bid off of to make sure they won. I am hoping for RMEF but my gut tells me there's going to be disappointment.


----------



## robiland (Jan 20, 2008)

It will be interesting to say the least.

But I just dont see how there is no public input from this process. 
They say get involved, come to the meetings, RAC and what ever else, and If you dont get involved, you cant complain. So how can I get involved if I cant give my 2 cents? Interesting!!!???!!!


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

The bid committee was given certain criteria to use while grading the bids... I felt that the initial criteria was slanted against RMEF. I think, ultimately, it would be harder to get bias into that committee than it was to just write the criteria in a very specific way and then require the committee to grade to that criteria.

I sure hope this is all on the up-and-up and it ends in the best interest of wildlife. But if it goes south, I will not be attending the Expo in the future. (I may redeem my tag applications, as the tags are still public property that I have a right to try and obtain, but I will not be going inside.)


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

Is it troubling to anyone other than me that the DWR never allowed ANY public input for the expo contract? There was no public input allowed for the expo contract at any of the RACs or Wildlife Board Meetings. In addition, a simple reading of the rule will show that the DWR didn't even follow their own rule by implementing this bogus RFP which was "mentioned" one time, but is no where to be found in their own administrative rule which was just amended one year ago. The Elk Foundation proposes to give all of the expo tag revenue back to the state for conservation and then we learn of the RFP.


----------



## bezog (Apr 29, 2015)

Hey all. I'm pretty new to hunting, especially here in Utah. Can anyone explain to me what an Expo tag is and what the expo tag contract is? Thanks.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

bezog said:


> Hey all. I'm pretty new to hunting, especially here in Utah. Can anyone explain to me what an Expo tag is and what the expo tag contract is? Thanks.


Expo tags allow non-state run organization(s) to make a large profit on state resources by pulling on the heartstrings of hunters who have a small chance to draw a tag they won't draw in the current broke system.

The expo contract is which organization gets to make that money. The current one keeps the max it can, 70%, and RMEF wants to keep 0%.

Political BS. Shortest description I could think of.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

bezog said:


> Hey all. I'm pretty new to hunting, especially here in Utah. Can anyone explain to me what an Expo tag is and what the expo tag contract is? Thanks.


Here ya go bezog,

http://www.huntexpo.com


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> Expo tags allow non-state run organization(s) to make a large profit on state resources by pulling on the heartstrings of hunters who have a small chance to draw a tag they won't draw in the current broke system.
> 
> The expo contract is which organization gets to make that money. The current one keeps the max it can, 70%, and RMEF wants to keep 0%.
> 
> Political BS. Shortest description I could think of.


This may very well be the single perfect description of expo tags!

So I'll see you there? ;-)


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

The problem is that whole RFP game allowed everybody to see RMEF's bid and then write the criteria for the contract afterwards. 

They can then point to an "independent committee" and act like the decision was out of their hands. But who wrote the criteria? Could it be the same people that many believe want to fix the system?

I just hope our paranoia proves to be just that... paranoia. I hope I'm on here on Friday admitting my fears were unfounded. I guess we'll see.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

While you won't be allowed to speak at the Wildlife Board meeting, there's nothing stopping you from sending an email, text or fax to Wildlife Board members with your opinion.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

grizzly said:


> The problem is that whole RFP game allowed everybody to see RMEF's bid


*
In theory*, the RFP shouldn't allow anyone to see RMEF's bid. That should have been kept private. BUT, we all know how that went...


----------



## grizzly (Jun 3, 2012)

RandomElk16 said:


> *
> In theory*, the RFP shouldn't allow anyone to see RMEF's bid. That should have been kept private. BUT, we all know how that went...


Yes we do. Because there wasn't an RFP until after they turned in their bid.

I hope somebody starts letting their friends hunt on their tags, and then point out to DWR it was "mentioned" to allow party hunting.

"Mentioning" makes it law, right?

EDIT: If this looks in the least bit untoward after the bid is awarded, I'll donate $100 to anybody that wants to start a fund to hire an attorney to dig into the actual happenings of the process.


----------



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

There's more than just people in Utah awaiting this decision. We will learn on Friday how deep rooted corruption is. If SFW is the name pulled out of the hat, Utah will keep its reputation of stupidity and corruption in good standing on a national scale. RMEF stepped up to the plate and did the right thing without being forced their hand. If they don't get this contract they can up it to 500 tags, I'll never attend the expo again, and spend more of my money out of state.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

The Utah DWR and SFW have connections tighter than siamese twins!

And both the conservation and expo permits are life blood ......

Despite the effort, I don't see the two separating at this time..

SFW's name will be pulled out of the hat again Friday....JMHO.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> There's more than just people in Utah awaiting this decision. We will learn on Friday how deep rooted corruption is. If SFW is the name pulled out of the hat, Utah will keep its reputation of stupidity and corruption in good standing on a national scale. RMEF stepped up to the plate and did the right thing without being forced their hand. If they don't get this contract they can up it to 500 tags, I'll never attend the expo again, and spend more of my money out of state.


You have no idea how true this statement is right now.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

I am going to withhold my comments about the process employed by the DWR until the dust settles on Friday. However, for those of you who take the time to participate in the Board Meeting on Friday, play close attention to which board members vote on the decision and which members recuse themselves from vote. Each member of the evaluation committee and each Wildlife Board Member is required to certify in writing that they do not have any conflict of interest prior to participating in the process. There are many statutes, rules and cases that define what constitutes a conflict of interest but R33-24-106 is particularly helpful: 

"Executive branch employees are prohibited from participating in any and all discussions or decisions relating to the procurement, contracting or administration process if they have any type of personal relationship, favoritism, or bias that would appear to a reasonable person to influence their independence in performing their assigned duties and responsibilities relating to the procurement process, contracting or contract administration or prevent them from fairly and objectively evaluating a proposal in response to a bid, RFP or other solicitation. This provision shall not be construed to prevent an employee from having a bias based on the employee's review of a response to the solicitation in regard to the criteria in the solicitation."

During the last Wildlife Board Meeting, the attorney for the DWR was asked if merely being a member of one of the conservation groups would constitute a conflict of interest. In response, he answered "probably not" but if you were a past board member or officer that probably would be a conflict. At that point, a different Board Member asked for clarification if that applied to past officers and directors or just current officers and directors. Another Board Member then asked how many Board Members were needed to make a decision to which the attorney stated that they needed to have at least a quorum (4 out of 7) in order to vote. When it was all said and done, the attorney stated that he would work with each Board Member to answer their questions regarding potential conflicts. Pay attention to how this plays out.

-Hawkeye-

P.S. These are just my personal views as an interested and concerned sportsman.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Igottabigone said:


> The Utah Wildlife Board has scheduled a special meeting for this Friday (12/18/2015) at 10 am, to review the recommendation from the evaluation committee and make a decision regarding which group(s) will receive the next Expo Tag contract. See http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2015-12-18_board_agenda.pdf If you cannot make it to the meeting, you can view the proceedings via the following link:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So my "participation" is limited to either applause or booing of the decision that has already been made, should I elect to attend the meeting? When you look at it that way, sending a barrage of emails the WB's way sounds ALOT more efficient! Probably a lot less frustrating as well...


----------



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

A reliable source said RMEF has raised the ante even higher as far as the expo proposal the second time around goes. If RMEF doesn't get this it's a complete sham. The worry is about how the proposal selection criteria was written. Can't wait to see what happens Friday. We're all waiting guys


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> A reliable source said RMEF has raised the ante even higher as far as the expo proposal the second time around goes. If RMEF doesn't get this it's a complete sham. The worry is about how the proposal selection criteria was written. Can't wait to see what happens Friday. We're all waiting guys


Regardless of outcome, after Friday please post the ante..


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> A reliable source said RMEF has raised the ante even higher as far as the expo proposal the second time around goes. If RMEF doesn't get this it's a complete sham. The worry is about how the proposal selection criteria was written. Can't wait to see what happens Friday. We're all waiting guys


That's how you have to play the game when your first proposal is quashed. Your second proposal has to beat your first one because your competitor now knows what your first proposal was and they go in to beat that proposal thinking you are going to at least match your first proposal again. Just yesterday I sent in a second bid proposal on a deal and I knocked about 15% off of our original price, now we have their attention all of a sudden.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> A reliable source said RMEF has raised the ante even higher as far as the expo proposal the second time around goes. If RMEF doesn't get this it's a complete sham. The worry is about how the proposal selection criteria was written. Can't wait to see what happens Friday. We're all waiting guys


People will be shocked with RMEF proposal!


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Wasn't the last contract awarded to MDF? Maybe I'm wrong there, but if that is the case then MDF probably has the upperhand with past performance taken into account (they have been involved since the Expo started 10 or so years ago). And if the Board will be voting on MDF, then I doubt there will be the need for members to recuse themselves (barring a tie when the chair would need to vote). Just thinking out loud. I could be wrong in my assumptions.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The thing is, the public doesn't have input on state contracts of any kind. It doesn't matter what agency you are dealing with. The sheer fact that DWR is letting any of the process be available to the public - a vote of board members, total disclosure of the criteria, or any analysis of the evaluations is pretty interesting. In most all government contracting, it would normally take a FOIA (or GRAMA in the case of the state) request to get the breakdown of just the pricing, let alone the evaluations or copies of other firms' proposals (unless they are leaked as LL has pointed out) - but that is illegal. It happens all the time, but it is illegal. So unless RMEF or SFW make their proposals public on their own, then one would have to file a formal GRAMA request in order to get a copy of them. 

Now all that said, government RFPs are seldom ever written by the agency that puts them out. In probably 90% of all cases, they are written by the favored firm, and given to the agency as an "Unsolicited White Paper." Because of course, it would be illegal for the firm to write the RFP, SOW, or Evaluation criteria. But those white papers get cut and pasted into the formal solicitations. And If written correctly, regardless of any other bids, the author's firm will be the ONLY firm that can meet the criteria and therefore will get the award.

Having not seen this particular proposal, if you buy into suggestion that SFW is wired to get the contract again, look at the evaluation criteria for things like "Organizations that were founded, and are based in Utah will receive an additional XX points." or "Utah based Organizations that have operated hunting expos in Utah for 10 years or more as the prime expo organizer will be given preference over organizations based out of state that may have been expo participants, but did not play the role as prime even organizer." 

Stuff like that is how you do it. If there are criteria like that, you can pretty easily figure out if SFW wrote the RFP or not, even if you can't prove it. And then the evaluators, regardless of any conflict of interest or not, heck, they could be 7 people pulled off the street that have never heard of SFW or RMEF or DWR for that matter. But by using that kind of specificity of criteria, they'll have no choice but to give the contract to the pre-selected firm. As LostLouisana pointed out, that is how the government contracting game is played. I've been in that game for 20 years now. And I've won every single RFP that I've written. Only a half dozen or so times over 20 years have I ever won a "free and open" compete RFP.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GaryFish said:


> The thing is, the public doesn't have input on state contracts of any kind. It doesn't matter what agency you are dealing with. The sheer fact that DWR is letting any of the process be available to the public - a vote of board members, total disclosure of the criteria, or any analysis of the evaluations is pretty interesting. In most all government contracting, it would normally take a FOIA (or GRAMA in the case of the state) request to get the breakdown of just the pricing, let alone the evaluations or copies of other firms' proposals (unless they are leaked as LL has pointed out) - but that is illegal. It happens all the time, but it is illegal. So unless RMEF or SFW make their proposals public on their own, then one would have to file a formal GRAMA request in order to get a copy of them.
> 
> Now all that said, government RFPs are seldom ever written by the agency that puts them out. In probably 90% of all cases, they are written by the favored firm, and given to the agency as an "Unsolicited White Paper." Because of course, it would be illegal for the firm to write the RFP, SOW, or Evaluation criteria. But those white papers get cut and pasted into the formal solicitations. And If written correctly, regardless of any other bids, the author's firm will be the ONLY firm that can meet the criteria and therefore will get the award.
> 
> ...


Applications will be evaluated using the following criteria:

-The viability and strength of the organization's business plan for conducting a quality event that attracts more than 10,000 people and promotes hunting, fishing and trapping in Utah

-The ability to effectively plan and complete the wildlife expo, including past performance in marketing conservation permits

-The ability to organize and conduct the permit drawing in a manner that is fair and ensures data security

-The organization's level of commitment to use expo permit handling fee revenue to benefit protected wildlife in Utah

-Their past performance and historical contributions to the conservation of wildlife in Utah

The highest scoring application will be presented to the Utah Wildlife Board for approval.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

That first one is your indicator and tells you all you need to know. Only one group I'm aware of, has done that first one. So there ya go.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

If that is the criteria it's time to put out the fire and call in the dogs and go get a beer, this thing is over and SFW walks away with millions again. I just looked at the criteria and it's a joke. Those criteria were written by SFW or I ain't from Loooooooziana.

"Applications will be evaluated using the following criteria:

-The viability and strength of the organization's business plan for conducting a quality event that attracts more than 10,000 people and promotes hunting, fishing and trapping in Utah

-The ability to effectively plan and complete the wildlife expo, including past performance in marketing conservation permits

-The ability to organize and conduct the permit drawing in a manner that is fair and ensures data security

-The organization's level of commitment to use expo permit handling fee revenue to benefit protected wildlife in Utah

-Their past performance and historical contributions to the conservation of wildlife in Utah"


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

I would think that the last one is more favorable to SWF than the first. The first is about organization's capability of executing the event and if it has a solid plan. The last is "past performance." And it's hard to beat an organization founded here and given past funds from the expo specifically for Utah wildlife conservation on that last point.


----------



## Igottabigone (Oct 4, 2007)

The breakdown and scoring is as follows:

1. Viability of Business Plan and potential to put on high quality wildlife exposition.
a. Expo Operations - 20% of total score
b. Economic Considerations - 10% of total score
c. Promotion of hunting, fishing, and trapping in Utah - 10% of total score

2. Ability to organize and conduct a secure and fair permit drawing - 20% of total score

3. Conservation organization's commitment to use revenue generated through the wildlife expo for wildlife conservation in Utah, including the use of the remaining $3.50 of the Expo permit application fee - 30% of total score

4. Historical contribution and previous performance of organization in wildlife conservation in Utah - 10% of total score.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

willfish4food said:


> I would think that the last one is more favorable to SWF than the first. The first is about organization's capability of executing the event and if it has a solid plan. The last is "past performance." And it's hard to beat an organization founded here and given past funds from the expo specifically for Utah wildlife conservation on that last point.


Do they Add or deduct points for money wasted on the wolf de-listing and sage grouse?


----------



## tallbuck (Apr 30, 2009)

Quick Question: Is there a full list of all the Groups that submitted a proposal? 


So who all is going to attend the meeting?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

This situation makes me wish I would have went to law school, like I planned on. This would be a great pro bono case if SFW is awarded the contract. 

Hey johnnycake, aren't you one of those lawyers looking for a good pro bono case? ;-) ;-)


----------



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

Despite what happens on Friday, RMEF has been very beneficial to these expo permits. I've gained a lot of respect for the organization and will become a life member as soon as I can afford to. They stepped up to the plate, saw something was wrong here and came in and fixed it themselves or by pressuring the other organizations involved to do the right thing. That being said RMEF must have one hell of a contract at this point and they should be awarded the permits. It's arguable that RMEF has just as much of an advantage on those bullet points. 
-they can without doubt attract more people and put on a better expo IMO
-they can without doubt do the drawing
-they've proven to be much more committed to conservation
-and they've done plenty conservation in this state

There bid has to dwarf all others, they should be awarded, if they will remains to be seen.


I do have one question, will the organization that wins this bid also get the auction tags or just the 200 draw tags? Like the antelope island tag that sales for around $350,000 a year?


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Over on the hunttalk forum, Randy Newberg, who sits on the board of directors for RMEF noted that there may be a work around to the conflict of interest of the Wildlife Board members. Since 4 of them have been affiliated with SFW at a high level, they may claim that there is no conflict of interest if MDF is the organization that officially submits the proposal.(Just noticed this was mentioned on the previous page.)

I think there is a lot to be uneasy about the way things have gone down. Even with the ante being upped by RMEF, I'm not very sure that this game hasn't been rigged through the wording of the RFP process. I hope I'm wrong. I enjoy the expo for the companies and products there, some of which I never have the opportunity to try on or see in person(Kuiu, etc.). However, I won't attend in the future if this train keeps heading down the same tracks.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

As a RMEF Life Member and a true believer in their cause my opinions are biased towards them winning the contract. 

That being said, if SFW/MDF win the contract again how many of us keyboard protesters are willing to stop buying expo tag entries? How much effect do you think that will actually have on the process or decision making in the future?

I can tell you that I will continue to put in for the drawings regardless of the contract holder because a winning entry would benefit me enough to offset my disagreements with their practices. Maybe if it didn't take 20 years to draw a LE or OIL tag through the normal processes I'd feel differently...but maybe not.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

KineKilla said:


> I can tell you that I will continue to put in for the drawings regardless of the contract holder because a winning entry would benefit me enough to offset my disagreements with their practices. Maybe if it didn't take 20 years to draw a LE or OIL tag through the normal processes I'd feel differently...but maybe not.


Me too. And drawing my OIL tag won't take 20 years. I'm still 300+ years from the top bonus point pool. I better start eating my Wheaties! (and putting in for expo tags...)


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Me too. And drawing my OIL tag won't take 20 years. I'm still 300+ years from the top bonus point pool. I better start eating my Wheaties! (and putting in for expo tags...)


I actually re-figured my chances of drawing a OIL tag in the future and I got a lot closer this last year. Either the hunters above me are either not putting in for the draws anymore or have died. So there is a chance.


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)




----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

CPAjeff said:


>


I knew that was coming, I almost posted it myself...LOL


----------



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

Record attendance at RMEFs show in Las Vegas:

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

Let's hope they bring their conservation power to Utah.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Lol CPA, as an almost graduated lawyer I really would love to get involved in any potential suit if RMEF isn't awarded the contract. That being said, I doubt I could as I guarantee RMEF has plenty of volunteer legal talent way more qualified than I.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Don't underestimate yourself, johnnycake. Most lawyers just make it up as we go most the time! ;-)


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Fair enough vanilla, but my present move to Anchorage would likely throw up another barrier!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

One point all of you seem to missing, though, is that even if SFW/MDF wins this thing--and they shouldn't--sportsmen and wildlife still make gains. I don't think there is any way that SFW/MDF can win this bid without having improved their plan and upping the monetary return...surely, this new deal will be better than what we have had in the past regardless of who gets it.

With that being said, I agree totally that the process is a farce IF RMEF's bid is clearly the better of the two...but without seeing the bids, how do we know?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

wyoming2utah said:


> One point all of you seem to missing, though, is that even if SFW/MDF wins this thing--and they shouldn't--sportsmen and wildlife still make gains. I don't think there is any way that SFW/MDF can win this bid without having improved their plan and upping the monetary return...surely, this new deal will be better than what we have had in the past regardless of who gets it.
> 
> With that being said, I agree totally that the process is a farce IF RMEF's bid is clearly the better of the two...but without seeing the bids, how do we know?


Don't bet the farm on it with a majority of the members on the decision committee being ex SFW executives.


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

All proposals will be public information once the contact is awarded and executed. 

Hawkeye


----------



## nebocreel (Mar 18, 2014)

The WB can only vote to affirm the State of Utahs decision as to who gets the contract. The only way they can vote no is if they know and can substantiate some gross misrepresentation, falsehood etc in connection with the organization that has been approved to receive the contract. The WB's involvement in the process is very narrow and restricted by rule. Basically, according to the DNR's attorney they are obligated to accept the committees decision without comment. The only rub is the conflict of interest scenario and having a full quorum to vote. If SFW is awarded the contract, I'm not sure if there would be enough qualifying board members that could vote under the quorum rules. If that happens the state folks will have to make some other determination as to how to handle it legally. If RMEF or MDF is awarded the contract its a done deal. We should be most concerned that wildlife conservation in the State of Utah is the winner in the end.


----------

