State legislators are preparing to take ambitious steps to help the construction industry jump-start its way out of the recession, but it should not do so at the expense of environmental or competitive requirements.
The Senate has focused on a potential $500 million repair and maintenance investment aimed at shovel-ready projects, which should comprise those that have been approved and with hiring nearly completed. The money would come from the issuance of bonds and require debt service payments.
Senators were told by Aaron Fujioka, the state’s chief procurement officer, that a typical project can take as long as three and a half years to complete, while procurement can be completed in as little as three to six months without government regulation.
State Rep. Isaac Choy said lawmakers are "working really hard on the procurement code and the protest area, trying to eliminate some of the complexities and trying to streamline jobs."
Done right, a careful approach to snip away undue red tape is welcome, if it preserves the integrity of an open, competitive process.
House Bill 1671, for one, seems to strike that balance: It would retain the procurement protest process, but set time limits for reviews and decisions. It also requires the State Procurement Office to keep statistics on protested solicitations and awards.
But there’s cause for concern in another, more heavy-handed approach: Among these is House Bill 1893, introduced by House Speaker Calvin Say, which would give the governor and county mayors authority to exempt certain construction projects from environmental review until July 2014. The bill has yet to undergo House hearings but, through Say’s handling, has advanced on the legislative agenda.
This measure would not apply to Hono-lulu’s rail project and other major construction, including wastewater treatment, a landfill and an oil refinery. Still, while the bill’s stated intent is to fast-track projects to boost construction and the state’s economy, it threatens to eliminate needed transparency and oversight. Favoritism, misuse of public funds or mismanagement become greater concerns without openness. Allowing the state or counties’ chief executives to unilaterally bypass environmental laws is not the way to proceed.
The bill seeks to give the governor and mayors the legal right to ignore, for two years, state law’s Chapter 343 that requires review of projects involving public funds, public lands or sensitive/special areas for disclosure of potential environmental impacts.
"In other words," wrote Gary Hooser, director of the state’s Office of Environmental Quality Control in a January commentary, "the law protects the public interest by ensuring wise use of our precious natural resources."
A related House Bill 1894 seeks to temporarily allow the governor or mayors, who normally are not allowed to intervene in a procurement, to exempt a construction project from an administrative review based on a protest, on the condition that details be released for public inspection.
State procurement chief Fujioka testified against this bill, rightly saying that it "eliminates checks and balances, limits the ability of the chief procurement officers to take corrective action" and would "likely lead to misuse."
Even contractors’ associations, which one would expect to be thankful for tossing delays to the side, are opposed to it.
Malcolm Barcarse Jr. of the Associated Builders and Contractors commented that, "We should not undermine the integrity of the procurement process in the name of streamlining. … Many protestable flaws that occur in the bidding process are discovered by competing contractors who are knowledgeable of the marketplace."
Lawmakers are stewards of much that is special to Hawaii: our industries as well as our environment. Creating jobs should not sacrifice quality and openness standards.
