President Barack Obama - Honolulu Authoirty for Rapid Transit (HART) - SOS - Code RED - Immediate Jeopardy

Clifton M. Hasegawa
President and CEO
Clifton M. Hasegawa & Associates, LLC
Chairman, President and CEO
Kaimanu Maritime Corporation
1044 Kilani Avenue 12
Wahiawa, Hawaii 96786-2243
Telephone: (808) 498-8408
Email: clifhasegawa@gmail.com
Via United States Postal Service – Express Mail
June 19, 2015
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Re: Senator Daniel K. Inouye - The Rail Transit
Department of Transportation Inspector General Complaint
Audit and Investigation of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit (HART)
Transit from Kapolei to Ala Moana Center and The University of Hawaii
Dear President Obama:
Your intervention to complete Senator Dan Inouye's Rail Transit is requested.

Senator Inouye began the Rail Transit project with Mayor Mufi Hanneman and
shepherded the project with Mayor Peter Carlisle and Mayor Kirk Caldwell.
Senator Inouye's leadership, wisdom, guidance and direction provided the
cohesiveness to keep the transit organization and project focused and moving
forward.
The Rail Transit is the largest construction project in the State of Hawaii.
Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III is in receipt
of my Hot Line Complaint regarding the operation of the Rail Transit Program.
My objective is to have a complete audit and thorough investigation of Honolulu
Authority for Rapid Transit, to implement best management and financial
procedures, and to establish oversight program to complete the Rail Transit.
Senator Inouye stated on more than one occasion that the disbursement of $1.5
billion from the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) was the last. Senator Inouye
languished over the delays in the project, the unaccounted and lavish
expenditure of tax dollars, gaps in the procurement practices and procedures,
and the consistent and constant requests from Honolulu Authority for Rapid
Transit for additional funding. Shuttering access to Federal funding was Senator
Inouye's message to Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit, “No grant and aide
from Washington until and unless financial transparency, accountability and
responsibility are restored and established, the Honolulu Authority for Rapid
Transit budget is streamlined, all known and reasonably foreseeable cost
contingencies are accounted and included in the budget, all financial information
is accurate and current, and all revenue, expenses and expenditures are auditable
without self-guided restrictions.”
Immediate action by Inspector General Scovel and his investigative and audit
teams is imperative. The situation is Code Red. The Rail Transit is in crisis and
immediate jeopardy.

Upon completion of action by the Department of Transportation Inspector
General and the Federal Transit Authority, I respectfully recommend a
collaborative and mutual financial plan between Department of Transportation,
Federal Transit Authority and the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit be
developed and implemented for a cost sharing to complete the Rail Transit.
The current end point for the Rail Transit from Kapolei is Ala Moana Center. The
University of Hawaii was the intended destination.
Respectfully, I recommend the Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Authority and the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit develop, establish and
implement operational plans and procedures to complete the Rail Transit to the
University of Hawaii.
Thank you very much
Aloha
Respectfully,
--- Signed---
Clifton M. Hasegawa
Copies provided to:
Governor David Ige
State of Hawaii
Lieutenant Governor Shan Tsutsui
State of Hawaii

Members of the Hawaii State Senate
Members of the Hawaii State House of Representatives
Mayor Kirk Caldwell
City & County of Honolulu
Members of the Honolulu City Council
Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa
Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit
Daniel Grabauskas
Executive Director & CEO
Scott Ishikawa
Media Relations – Construction

This page intentionally left blank

Clifton M. Hasegawa
President and CEO
1044 Kilani Avenue 12, Wahiawa, Hawaii 96786-2243
Direct: 808.498.8408 ♦ Email: clifhasegawa@gmail.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cliftonhasegawa
June 6, 2015
VIA EMAIL - hotline@oig.dot.gov
The Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. - 7th Floor
RE: Request for Investigation
Dear Mr. Scovel:
This Complaint and request that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
initiate an investigation into the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation
(HART) on the bases of fraud, waste and abuse in the expenditure of Federal
funds violations of contracting and government procurement laws, and
violations of laws and regulations on Standards of Conduct.
This matter has been brought to the attention of government officials at
the United States Department of Transportation; the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA); the Federal Transit Authority (FTA); David Y. Ige,
Governor, State of Hawaii; Shan S. Tsutsui, Lieutenant Governor, State of
Hawaii; the Hawaii State Legislature; the State of Hawaii Department of
Transportation; Kirk Caldwell, Mayor City & County of Honolulu; the Council
Members, City & County of Honolulu; Daniel Grabauskas, Executive Director &
CEO, Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation and the Board of Directors,
Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation. Financial mismanagement;
instances of fraud, waste and abuse; violations of contracting and procurement
laws, and standards of conduct laws and regulations continue.

Please refer to the attached Exhibit Request for Government Records –
Ethics Violations to the City & County of Honolulu, Honolulu Authority of
Rapid Transit (HART) June 4, 2015 and the following Slide Share presentations:
1. Request for Government Records – Ethics Violations – City & County
of Honolulu, Honolulu Authority of Rapid Transit (HART) June 4, 2015.
2. http://www.slideshare.net/cliftonmhasegawa/the-rail-quality-
assurance-safety-primary-and-priority
3. http://www.slideshare.net/cliftonmhasegawa/honolulu-authoirty-
for-rapid-transit-unsafe-at-any-speed-part-ii
4. http://www.slideshare.net/cliftonmhasegawa/hart-hawaii-state-
legislature-city-and-county-of-honolulu-hawaii-public-utilities-commission-may-
5-2015
5. http://www.slideshare.net/cliftonmhasegawa/yesterday-47881430
6. http://www.slideshare.net/cliftonmhasegawa/honolulu-authoirty-
for-rapid-transit-hart-a-template-for-doom-and-destruction
The Federal dollars committed and to be released are significant.
PROJECT REVENUE STATUS (As of May 1, 2015)
Projections to Date Collected/ Committed to Date % of projections
REVENUE SOURCE: (in millions) (in millions)
Project Beginning Cash Balance (December 2009)
$ 298 $ 298 100%
General Excise Tax (GET) Surcharge
$ 3,291 $ 1,091 33%
Federal New Starts Funds
$ 1,550 $ 806 52%
Other Federal Transportation Funds
$ 214 $ 4 2%

Source: Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit (HART) Date Accessed June 6,
2015 http://www.honolulutransit.org/media/344687/201506-rail-update-hart-facts.pdf
Prevention and detection of fraud, waste, abuse of Federal funds are
priority programs of the United States Department of Transportation.
Prevention and Detection of Fraud in Transportation Programs
The prevention and detection of fraud is an objective we share throughout
all levels of government. In 1960, the predecessor of this subcommittee,
led by Congressman Blatnik, investigated the Federal-aid Program and
found it was fraught with waste, fraud, and corruption. They concluded
that essential controls were lacking at both the state and Federal levels.
Controls to prevent the types of problems that were occurring then were
put in place; our work does not suggest abuse on a scale such as was
experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. However, in the past 3 years, we have
seen increases in our fraud case work and judicial actions involving
highways and transit, including several of the biggest cases in the history
of the highway program.
At present, we have 113 pending investigations of contract and grant
fraud involving highway and transit projects in 37 states.
The types of fraud we are commonly seeing today include activities like
bid rigging, bribery and kickbacks, false claims, and product substitution.
The states are the first line of defense in preventing such fraud, and we
have been working closely with a number of state Inspectors General and
state auditors on our fraud investigations.
Source: Statement of Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Transportation. Before the Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
United States House of Representatives. May 1, 2002.
https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/cc2002155.pdf
Audit Announcement — Audit of FTA’s Oversight of At-Risk Grantees
Federal Transit Administration. From: Thomas E. Yatsco, Assistant
Inspector General for Surface Transportation. To: Federal Transit
Administrator. August 12, 2014

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers multiple grant
programs to more than 1,200 State and local grantees, providing more
than $10.6 billion of Federal assistance in 2014 to help plan, build, and
operate transit systems nationwide.
In the past 4 years, FTA’s financial management reviews of transit
agencies’ internal controls have identified 36 at-risk grantees with
significant deficiencies such as unallowable costs, inadequate competition
for major procurements, and an inability to reconcile actual costs with
allowable budget categories. The deficiencies required FTA to place
additional oversight controls on the disbursement of Federal funding to
these transit agencies, including restricting agencies’ ability to draw down
Federal funds and requiring them to take corrective actions before
restrictions are lifted.
We are initiating an audit of FTA’s oversight of at-risk transit agencies.
The objective of this audit is to assess whether FTA has effective oversight
procedures to ensure that at-risk transit agencies take corrective actions to
address internal control weaknesses identified in financial management
reviews.
Source: U.S. Department of Memorandum. Transportation Office of the
Secretary of Transportation Office of Inspector General.
https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FTA%20At%20Risk%20Gran
tees%20Announcement%20Letter%5EAugust%2012%2C%202014.pdf
The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) has not
heretofore been identified as an at-risk transit program. HART is an at-risk
transit program. The Exhibit and Slide Share presentations provide clear and
convincing clear demonstrative factual evidence. of the as it should be. The
extent to which HART is an at-risk transit program has been minimized and
shrouded by less than fully transparent audits and reports. Primary is
expressed by the City Auditor, City & County of Honolulu, “HART has met
minimum requirements as required by the FTA and its various contracts. But
HART needs to go beyond meeting minimum requirements. Honolulu’s
taxpayers need assurance that their tax dollars are used prudently and
efficiently.”

Less than charitable but more direct and insightful are the words of
HART’s Independent Auditor, “[T]he financial statements present only the
Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation and do not purport to, and do not,
present fairly the financial position of the City and County of Honolulu as of
June 30, 2014 … we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of
laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which
could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial
statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those
provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express
such an opinion.”
Denial of the truth by government officials and plain and unequivocal
representation of the facts by Auditors have perpetuated fraud, waste and abuse
of federal and state funds.
Deficiencies in internal controls, financial oversight and full and
complete compliance with all applicable laws and regulations are revealed in
the audit reports of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation by the City
Auditor for the City & County of Honolulu and the audit report by
Independent Auditor for the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation.
Specifically,
Audit of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART).
The City Auditor, City & County of Honolulu
This audit was performed in response to City Council Resolution 12-149,
which requested an audit of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid
Transportation (HART) contracts and spending for public relations and
public involvement services. The resolution requested that the audit
determine what specific public involvement service(s) each employee,
consultant and subconsultant provided, and an opinion on whether the
service(s) and the amount paid (individually and collectively) were
objective, required by federal law, and justified. This audit was included
in the Office of the City Auditor’s Work Plan for FY 2012-13. The audit
was performed in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards between August 2012 and November 2012, and again
between April 2013 and November 2013.

HART needs to ensure that invoices are properly monitored and
approved; invoices have adequate support and documentation as
recommended in a prior audit; verify work performed by consultants and
sub-consultants; and develop a basis to evaluate consultant performance
and work products for efficiency and accountability.
Proper internal controls allow an entity to have reasonable assurance that
program objectives related to economy, effectiveness and efficiency of
operations, reliability of financial reporting, and compliance with
applicable laws and regulations are achieved. We found that HART’s
contract management system does not contain accurate data and is not an
effective oversight tool.
According to our review, the CMS system does not appear to be an
effective tool for managing HART’s contracts and associated costs. We
question HART’s ability to properly monitor its contracts and associated
costs if their main management system has incomplete data.
HART has met minimum requirements as required by the FTA and its
various contracts. But HART needs to go beyond meeting minimum
requirements. Honolulu’s taxpayers need assurance that their tax dollars
are used prudently and efficiently. Our audit report recommendations
will continue HART’s best efforts to be more efficient and accountable as
the project moves forward.
HART disagreed with our audit findings and recommendations. Based on
our audit work and supporting work papers we stand by our audit
results, audit conclusions, and audit recommendations. We believe HART
should be less reliant on consultants as the project progresses and should
be able to produce documents and data requested without the
intervention of the consultants.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Source: The City Auditor, City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii.
Report No. 13-03
http://www.honolulu.gov/rep/site/oca/oca_docs/audit_of_HART_public_involvement_programs_final_repor
t.pdf

Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Board of Directors
Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation
City and County of Honolulu
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Honolulu
Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART), a component unit of the City
and County of Honolulu, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, and
the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise
HART’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of
these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the
design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to
the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free
from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements
based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the
standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United
States.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from
material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures
selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of
the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due
to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers
internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation
of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly,
we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of
significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and
appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of the Honolulu Authority for
Rapid Transportation, as of June 30, 2014, and the changes in its financial
position and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the
Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation and do not purport to,
and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City and County
of Honolulu as of June 30, 2014, and the changes in its financial position
or, where applicable, its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.

Other Matters
2013 Financial Statements
The financial statements of HART, as of and for the year ended June 30,
2013, were audited by other auditors whose report dated on November 15,
2013 expressed an unmodified opinion on those statements.
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America
require that the management’s discussion and analysis and the schedule
of funding progress for the Hawaii Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust
Fund on pages 7 through 12 and page 34, respectively, be presented to
supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not
a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of
financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an
appropriate operational, economic, or historical context.
We have applied certain limited procedures to the required
supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of
inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information
and comparing the information for consistency with management’s
responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other
knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements.
We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the
information because the limited procedures do not provide us with
sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued
our report dated December 18, 2014 on our consideration of the HART’s
internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance
with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant
agreements and other matters.

The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of
internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of
that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over
financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an
audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in
considering HART’s internal control over financial reporting and
compliance.
Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we
considered HART's internal control over financial reporting (internal
control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial
statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of HART’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express
an opinion on the effectiveness of HART’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a
control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct,
misstatements on a timely basis.
A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in
internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material
misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or
detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a
deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less
severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention
by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose
described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to
identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our
audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we
consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may
exist that have not been identified.

Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether HART's
financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed
tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws,
regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance
with which could have a direct and material effect on the
determination of financial statement amounts. However,
providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions
was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no
instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be
reported under Government Auditing Standards.
[Emphasis Supplied]
Source: Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit (HART)
http://www.honolulutransit.org/media/308474/20140630-and-2013-hart-
financial-statements-and-independent-auditors-report-final.pdf
House Bill 134-House Draft 1-Senate Draft 2-Confrence Committee Draft 1
was transmitted to Governor David Ige for signature on May 6, 2015. The
measure will extend the General Excise Tax (GET) Surcharge for the Honolulu
Authority for Rapid Transit, require the Board of Directors of the Honolulu
Authority for Rapid Transportation to conduct audits, submit annual reports to
the Governor and the State Legislature, and conduct public hearings and take
testimony on the audits and reports.
The measure adds an extra $1.8 billion in revenue for the rail project
which is already nearly $1 billion over-budget. Optimistically, the law is
intended minimize the red ink, realistically, based on the long-standing track
record of State and City & County officials inability to reign in HART the
implication is the creation of another spending frenzy for HART with no clearly
detailed incentives to change by establishing and implementing stricter
management and financial practices and procedures.

Failings in HART’s self-guided contracting and procurement procedures
cited in Exhibit 2 – Yesteryear and the focus of Request for Government Records
and Ethics Complaint, Exhibit 1, HART’s apparent violations of Federal and State
Procurement Laws and directives issued by the Federal Transit Authority (FTA)
perpetuate a toxic environment conducive to fraud and further unrestrained
mismanagement of Federal and State funds. The situation is Code Red. The
gravity is severe as the continued forward progress of the HART transit project is
in immediate jeopardy.
Your immediate intervention is requested.
Thank you very much.
Respectfully
Clifton M. Hasegawa
Copies provided to:
Mayor Kirk Caldwell
Council Chair Ernest Y Martin
Council Member Kymberly Marcos Pine
Council Member Carol Fukunaga
Council Member Ann Kobayashi
Council Member Ikaika Anderson
Councilmember Joey Manahan
Council Member Trevor Ozawa
Council Member Brandon Elefante
Council Member Ron Menor

Donna Y.L. Leong, Corporation Counsel, City & County of Honolulu
Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit (HART)
Mr. Daniel Grabauskas Executive Director and CEO
Board of Directors
Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa
Mr. Ivan Lui-Kwan
Mr. Don Horner
Mr. George I. Atta
Mr. Robert Bunda
Mr. Michael Formby
Mr. Ford Fuchigami
Mr. William Hong
Mr. Keslie Hui
Mr. Damien Kim
State of Hawaii
Senate President Ronald Kouchi
Members of the Hawaii State Senate
House Speaker Joseph Souki
Members of the Hawaii House of Representatives
Mr. Les Kondo, Executive Director, Hawaii State Ethics Commission
NOTE: Exhibits have been omitted for this Slide Share presentation

Clifton M. Hasegawa
President and CEO
1044 Kilani Avenue 12
Wahiawa, Hawaii 96786-2243
Direct: 808.498.8408
Email: clifhasegawa@gmail.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cliftonhasegawa
June 22, 2015
Ellen Richardson
Administrative Assistant to
Ann CalvaresiBarr, Deputy Inspector General
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. – 7th Floor
RE: Hot Line Complaint and Request for Investigation, June 6, 2015
City and County of Honolulu Recipient ID: 1703
Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit (HART)
US Department of Transportation, FTA Region IX
Dear Ms. Richardson,
Deputy Inspector General Ann CalvaresiBarr during her tenure with the
US General Accountability Office as Director of Acquisition and Sourcing
Management provided testimony before the United States Senate, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State,
Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, Federal Efforts Are
Helping to Address Some Challenges Faced by State and Local Fusion Centers,
GAO-08-695T, April 17, 2008. The major theme of Deputy Inspector General
CalvaresBarr’s testimony is the proper provisioning to systematically collect
current and accurate data and information, thorough analysis of the data and
information, identification of strengths and weaknesses, and positive action to
correct weaknesses in incumbent and mandated for State and local entities.
These issues are presented in my Complaint and are exponentially compounded
by the lack of oversight and the reluctance of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid
Transit (HART) and the City & County of Honolulu to implement recommended
corrective measures.

The $78.9 Million award by HART to Hawaiian Dredging Construction
Company, Inc. (HDCC) on June 10, 2015 for the Farrington Highway Station
Group - West Loch, Waipahu Transit Center and Leeward Community College
rail transit stations. This procurement was protested by Nan, Inc. and discussed
in my Complaint. HART made the award after receipt of the decision May 28,
2015 from Senior Hearing Officer David H. Karlen. Hearing Officer Karlen
granted HART’s and HDCC’s Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment, denied
Nan’s Motion as Moot, denied Nan’s claim and request for Administrative
Hearing as lacking jurisdiction. The Hearing Officer’s decision included
discussion of unbalanced bids. The Hearing Officer determined HDCC’s bid was
not mathematical unbalanced and on that basis determined inquiry and a
determination as to whether HDCC’s bid was materially unbalanced was not
necessary or required. Please refer to http://cca.hawaii.gov/oah/files/2015/05/PDH-
2015-004-Nani-Inc.-v.-Hawaii-Authority-for-Rapid-Transportation.pdf
The forgoing inquiry as to whether HDCC’s bid was unbalanced taken by
the Hearing Officer is a misinterpretation of guidance provided by the US
Department of Transportation and compromises the integrity of the
procurement. Specifically,
“In our review of bid information involving
substantial differences between the low bid unit
prices, we are required to consider first, whether there
is an error in the estimated quantity and if there is no
error, whether the bid is mathematically or materially
unbalanced. A mathematically unbalanced bid is one
containing a bid item(s) which do not reflect
reasonable actual costs and a reasonable
proportionate share of the bidder's profit and
overhead. A materially unbalanced bid is one for
which there is reasonable doubt that award to the
bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid
will result in the lowest cost the Government.
Identify any of these items considered to have the
potential to significantly overrun or underrun.
Indicate whether the unbalanced item is considered to
be mathematically or materially unbalanced.

[C]onsiderable judgment is required in reaching a
decision on whether a bid is mathematically or
materially unbalanced.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
“Bid Analysis and Unbalanced Bids” FWHA Memo
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/880516.pdf
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/award.cfm
The independent review as to whether Hawaiian Dredging Construction
Company’s bid is unbalanced, mathematical and/or materially, by the Office of
the Inspector General and the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) is requested to
restore transparency, responsibility and accountability to Honolulu Authority for
Rapid Transit (HART), the City & County of Honolulu, their leadership and
managers.
Thank you very much.
Respectfully,
--- Signed ---
Clifton M. Hasegawa

Caldwell Returns Budget Bills Unsigned in Protest of HART
Oversight
June 23, 2014· By Sophie Cocke Honolulu Civil Beat
Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell will allow the city’s 2015 fiscal year budget to
take effect in July without his signature, a symbolic gesture meant to underscore
his position that the City Council doesn’t have authority over the budget of the
quasi-city agency overseeing the $5.2 billion Honolulu rail project.
Caldwell returned six bills unsigned to the City Council on Monday, three of
which relate to the budget for the Honolulu Authority for Rapid
Transportation. Three others are the city’s legislative, operating and capital
budgets.
Caldwell said during a press conference earlier this month that he was
leaning toward signing the city’s operating and capital budgets this year, which
he rejected last year, while making clear that he would likely not sign the
separate HART budget bills.
“I believe under the charter amendment setting up HART, HART was
designated the entity to build rail and it was to take the politics out of the
system,” he said.
Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell speaking to the press on June 4, 2014

However, he decided not to sign the city’s legislative, operating and capital
budget bills as well because of clauses included in the measures related to
HART, according to a press release issued by the mayor’s office on Monday.
The clauses relate to the City Council’s authority over HART’s budget.
The move by Caldwell signifies a long-standing disagreement between the
mayor’s office and City Council over whether the council has authority over
HART’s budget. Former Mayor Peter Carlisle also declined to sign bills related
to the HART budget.
Council Chair Ann Kobayashi said that the City Council has always gone over
the HART budget since the agency was established.
HART “always submits their budget, they come to our hearings, they don’t
have a problem with it,” Kobayashi told Civil Beat.
“They have been transparent with us when asked questions or
when asked for more information, they give it to us.”
She said it was odd [ ? ] for the mayor to take the position that the City
Council doesn’t have authority over HART’s budget when HART is asking the
City Council to float bonds as bridge financing for the rail project.
“If they [sic]1 mayor thinks we don’t have any authority, does that mean that
he thinks we shouldn’t issue city bonds?” she said.
[Emphasis and Clarification Supplied]
Source: Honolulu Civil Beat http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/06/caldwell-
returns-budget-bills-unsigned-in-protest-of-hart-oversight/
1
Sic /sik/ in square brackets is an editing term used with quotations or excerpts. It means
“that’s really how it appears in the original.”

President Barack Obama - Honolulu Authoirty for Rapid Transit (HART) - SOS - Code RED - Immediate Jeopardy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to President Barack Obama - Honolulu Authoirty for Rapid Transit (HART) - SOS - Code RED - Immediate Jeopardy

Similar to President Barack Obama - Honolulu Authoirty for Rapid Transit (HART) - SOS - Code RED - Immediate Jeopardy (20)

More from Clifton M. Hasegawa & Associates, LLC

More from Clifton M. Hasegawa & Associates, LLC (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (14)

President Barack Obama - Honolulu Authoirty for Rapid Transit (HART) - SOS - Code RED - Immediate Jeopardy