On October 25, 1987, the Department of Transportation entered into Contract No. 23085 with Belt Collins & Associates. Belt Collins was to prepare a noise compatibility program and undertake a number of other related tasks, in return for which the state would pay Belt Collins $218,743, plus up to $40,000 for any extra work, as agreed to by the DOT. And, the contract adds, should the state should receive federal funds for this study, Belt Collins shall receive $150,000 more from those funds.
Deadline for completing all the projects specified in the contract was 365 days from the notice to proceed — or, roughly, November 1, 1988.
That deadline came and went with no measurable progress. However, the DOT was evidently pleased enough with Belt Collins’ work to amend the contract on April 25, 1990. Under this amendment, Belt Collins was to prepare a master plan update for Kahului airport, an EIS for the master plan, and a shoreline recreation plan for the Kanaha Beach Park area — in addition, of course, to the work called for in the original contract. For this additional work, Belt Collins was to receive payment of $429,124, with an allowance of $20,876 more for any extra work, as agreed to by the DOT.
This time, the deadline for completion of the contracted tasks was “within 360 calendar days” of the notice to proceed — say, generously, May 1, 1991.
A draft environmental impact statement was prepared for release in September 1991 — late, to be sure, and not without problems, but at least it was completed. There is as yet no master plan update or Kanaha Beach Park improvement plan. And, of course, progress on the work called for in the original contract seems to be locked in terminal neutral.
Eternal Hope
Nonetheless, evincing ongoing satisfaction with Belt Collins, the DOT amended the contract a second time on December 4, 1991. This time, Belt Collins was to receive $362,193, over and above earlier payments, with up to $44,064 in additional funds to cover “any extra work performed,” as agreed to by the DOT.
To quote from the scope of work contained in the second amendment to the contract, “the following task elements will be expanded/supplemented to ensure that all relevant and necessary project administration, coordination, data gathering and analysis be performed to complete the master plan update: a. introduction; b. existing conditions; c. air traffic activity forecasts,” and on through “h. administration and public informational program” — all of which tasks were set forth in the first amendment. Moreover, according to the amendment, “additional work is required to address and assess an increase in the number of alternatives and issues” described in the draft environmental impact statement. “Also,” the contract states, “various original task elements require more comprehensive analysis.”
Basically, as Dean Nakagawa of the airports division planning office said, the DEIS has had to be rewritten in light of the extensive critical comments from the public, and this contract amendment was required to cover that work.
Finally, Belt Collins is instructed to prepare “Phase II” of the shoreline recreation plan — although judging from the description of work contained in the contract, it is difficult to see how the work in “Phase II” differs from the work that was to have been done under the first contract amendment. (Under the first amendment, there was no mention of any phasing of the recreational plan.)
Belt Collins is to have all this work completed by March 31, 1992.
A Christmas-Tree Contract
Perhaps it goes without saying that none of this work was awarded through competitive bidding. In any event, the face value of the contract has grown from the original $218,743 ($368,743 if one includes the federal money) to the present $1.265 million — an increase of nearly 600 percent. Dean Nakagawa of the DOT airports division planning office says no further amendments to the contract are contemplated at this time.
The court order settling a lawsuit over airport noise requires that many of the same tasks called for in the Belt Collins contract be done again by a third party. When Nakagawa was asked whether this meant that public money was being spent for the same work to be done twice, he noted that the court order called for the analyses to be done by an “impartial” consultant. The Belt Collins work, in other words, was tainted for the purposes of the court settlement and could not be used. When Nakagawa was asked whether the state intended to require Belt Collins nevertheless to produce all the work called for under the contract and amendments, he insisted that this would indeed be required. Not all of it would be done by the March 31, 1992 deadline, he conceded, but, he added, it would be in the DOT’s hands within a few months of that.
Sharing the Wealth
On the two volumes of the DEIS, Pacific Planning & Engineering, Inc. is identified as the document’s author. In the appendices appear several reports from various subcontractors. Belt Collins hired all these as subcontractors, meaning (among other things) that the particular terms and conditions of their work are not subject to public disclosure requirements.
But Belt Collins may not have freely chosen these subcontractors on its own. The first amendment to the Belt Collins contract — the one calling for preparation of the environmental impact statement, among other tasks — instructs Belt Collins as to which consultants shall be used for various studies related to preparation of the EIS.
“A number of special studies will be required for the environmental impact statement,” the contract states. “The basic scope of these studies, and the suggested subconsultants, are described below. The subconsultants shall work under the management and direction of Pacific Planning and Engineering.” Y. Ebisu & Associates was to conduct noise impact studies; the firm of Hallett Hammett, historic and cultural analysis; Woodward-Clyde Consultants, air quality analyses; Char & Associates, study of flora and fauna; AECOS, water quality studies; Earthplan, social and economic impact studies; and Pacific Planning & Engineering, traffic studies.
Environment Hawai`i asked one of these consultants — Berna Cabacungan of Earthplan — how it had come to be selected. Cabacungan stated she had no idea that her firm was mentioned in the Belt Collins contract. To her best recollection, she said, Pacific Planning & Engineering approached her about conducting the social and economic impact studies for the Kahului airport EIS.
According to Dean Nakagawa of the airports division planning office, the DOT did not select these particular subcontractors nor was Belt Collins ordered to use them. Rather, they were part of the “team” put together by Pacific Planning & Engineering.
Giving ’til it hurts
In Hawai`i, nearly every private contractor contributes heavily to the campaign treasuries of important politicians. In fact, a principal of one architectural firm in Honolulu wrote as follows in a letter to the editor of Hawai`i Monitor, a newsletter on campaign spending: “As an architect who has been in practice in Hawai`i since 1958 I can assure you that there is a painful reality that I had to learn — that if you want to be considered for public projects, you have to be very generous at campaign time.” (The architect did not want his name to be used, for obvious reasons.)
In its April-May 1991 edition, Hawai`i Monitor disclosed that Belt Collins & Associates was one of 51 companies that contributed more to the 1990 primary campaign of Governor John Waihe`e than the law allows. (Pacific Planning & Engineering and KFC Airport, Inc., another consultant heavily used by the DOT, were also among those companies who over-gave.) Besides that, Belt Collins “took advantage of another legal loophole to contribute up to $4,000 during the 1988 elections, in which Waihe`e was not even a candidate,” according to Hawai`i Monitor. (Actually, the Campaign Spending Commission’s report for 1988 shows that Belt Collins contributed $3,000 to Waihe`e and that BCA, Ltd., which does business as Belt Collins & Associates, gave $2,000, meaning that Belt Collins gave $5,000 to Waihe`e’s campaign in the 1988 cycle — or $1,000 more than reported by Hawai`i Monitor.) Readers not acquainted with Hawai`i Monitor can request information from Hawai`i Monitor, 1750 Kalakaua Avenue, Suite 1306, Honolulu 96813.
Volume 2, Number 8 February 1992