Port of Bellingham’s PR deal just under legal threshold raises questions

A contract between the Port of Bellingham and Conflux Associates to provide services designed to improve public perception of the port that was authorized by port commissioners at their August 13 regular meeting appears designed to skirt Washington laws that require proof of competitive bidding.

The proposal submitted by Conflux Associates called for a three-year term and listed the services that would be provided in that time frame. The cost for those services would be $8,283 per month or $298,188 over the life of the contract. The standard agreement for personal services approved by the commissioners was amended to a one-year term for a total expenditure of $99,396. It further stated that the agreement could be extended for multiple terms or reinstated at the discretion of the port.

The proposal itself remained unchanged as the services provided followed the same three-year timeline.

The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) stipulates that ports must call for formal bids for contracts valued between $50,000 and $200,000. According to port public affairs administrator Mike Hogan, the port maintains a Municipal Research and Service Center (MRSC) roster for entities wishing to do business with the port and can contract with those entities without utilizing a formal bid procedure if the contract is under $100,000. The Conflux Associates contract falls $604 short of that trigger.

RCW 53.19.020 requires all personal service contracts (the type used in this instance) to be subject to competitive solicitation except for “contracts of fifty thousand dollars or greater but less than two hundred thousand shall have documented evidence of competition. Ports shall not structure contracts to evade these requirements.”

Further, RCW 53.19.040 states “Sole source contracts shall be filed with the commission and made available for public inspection prior to the proposed starting date of the contract. Documented justification for sole source contracts shall be provided to the commission when the contract is filed. For sole source contracts of fifty thousand dollars or more, documented justification shall include evidence that the port attempted to identify potential consultants.”

There are penalties for failing to comply with competitive procurement. Port commissioners or employees can be fined $300, and the consultant performing the work can be fined $300 plus a civil penalty equal to 25 percent of the contract, or $24,849 in this case.

Hogan provided a link to a MRSC roster containing personal and professional consulting contracts with various entities current to July 1, 2024. Of 485 contracts, all but five were selected on a competitive basis for amounts from as little as $250 up to nearly $1 million. The five exceptions were sole source contracts with the highest amount contracted being just shy of $18,000 except for one for research and communications manager consultant Jennifer Noveck at $100,716 for a 23-month stint.

Conflux Associates was registered as a limited liability company on June 12, 2017, with governors listed as Peter and Aimee Frazier. Its street address is a residential address on Chuckanut Point Road in Bellingham and it has no company website, as far as can be determined. It is not known if the company has any employees.

The contract was part of the consent agenda at the August 13 meeting. Consent agendas usually include items requiring commissioner approval that are typical in nature and don’t require discussion. Who placed it on the consent agenda is not known and is one of the questions posed to Hogan but not received by press time. The Northern Light also asked Hogan who changed the contract from three years to one year, at what meeting was the contract discussed in open public session by the commissioners, if the port requested to see samples of similar work performed by Conflux Associates prior to the contract being granted and the genesis of the proposal. In other words, did the proposal come independently from the consultant or did the port come up with the idea and approached the consultant? In addition, it is unknown if the contract had been reviewed by legal counsel prior to its approval and if so, why it was not flagged for review for compliance with the relevant RCWs.