01/27/2011 17:32 — eaeaeeeee a PAGE @1/@3 Se ral Burro tansy e Office of the Inspector General % Gregory W. Sullivan Inspector Ge John W. McCormack Stale Office Building (One Ashburton Place, Room 1311 Boston, MA 02108 Tel(617)727-9140 Fax (817)723-2334 worw.mass.govlig Fax te Reber S Tay from Creqory W Sul fvn rx: Soe - 688-5 7D] Pages: 3 _(incliding coversheet) pater W/a7feol! Phone Rex yi ct ‘anttinahy Wamig Tre aasiils anoasion COTS formation MeTGeG Oyo is ray Ifyu are net ine ntacec espn you ae ollie UetiterepHion of hi nfermation Is unlaatul 282), apacifely 2107} 20 amend by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1888). Criminal and el Denaites sp, Yo are nel autorze to eat, digsase, copy, slay, or dtbute iis information, Ary use of he Fonfcental content of tansmision i lege, Dalvie transmission to Une person named belaw immediately, i Yyou have recived the tarsssion In enor, we speiogze for any Incorwenienee, Please contact ua immediatly for Frstustons on how rebum as transmission to us. © Comments: Please noily sender al (617)727-9140 i there are any problems with ths transmission,01/27/2011 17:32 — eeeaaaa0e a PASE 02/03 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General GREGORY W. SULLIVAN start orrne pono SPECTOR GENERAL ‘SuensrTON PLACE rem yea Pre (or amano January 27, 2011 Richard R. MacDonald Town Manager Duxbury Town Hall 878 Tremont Street Duxbury, MA 02332 ‘Dear Mr. MacDonald: This Office has learned certain information from the Town of Duxbury (Town) pertaining to the bidding process conducted by the Town for golf management services of the Nort Hill Golf and Country Club: (“the golf course”). This Office also reviewed Judge Smith’s Memorandum of Decision and Order dated November 24, 2010 on the Defendants’ motion for Summary Judgment in Johnson, Golf Management, inc, vs. Town of Duxbury et.al, Docket No. MICV2008-04641-B (“Order”) “According to the Town: (1) One of the evaluators was privy to @ proposer’s price proposal prior to completion of the technical scoring. When it became know to the Town, the Town cancelled the request for proposal (RFP) process. (2) In the next RFP process, the evaluation committee determined that each of the two proposals received deserved a Highly ‘Advantageous rating, When the ptice proposals were subsequently opened, the Town awarded the contract to the firm offering the highest revenue to the Town. As represented to this Office, these procedures comport with M.G.L. ¢.30B. In a revenue generating scenario, the Town selected a proposal that was $92,500.00 higher. Each of the two proposers received identical composite evaluations on the technical submissions. The CPO identified the most advantageous proposal, taking into consideration the proposal technical evaluations and the proposal prices. Both proposals received the same rating ‘and the Town decided to go with the proposal that generated the most money for the Town. The ‘Town informed this Office that, at the time, it did not know that the highest proposer lacked the assets and equipment to perform the contract. In the opinion of this Office the options available to the Town include: + Rejection of all bids and manage the golf course itself, and + Rebidding the contract and awarding a contract to either: (a) the responsive and responsible bidder offering the highest amount of money in an Invitation for Bids under1/27/2011 17:32 —eaeeaaaea a PAGE @3/@2 M.GLL. ©.30B, §5; oF () to the most advantageous proposer offering the most advantageous proposel taking into consideration all evaluation criteria as well as price pursuant to M.G.L. c.30B, §6. ‘As you know, the role of the Office in interpreting M.G.L. 0.308 is strictly advisory in nature, Please do not hesitate to contact us with ey questions you have about this letter or your future solicitation for services. Gregory W. Sullivan Inspector General Robert S, Troy, Esq.