Two developers have alleged the bidding process for a courthouse project in Springfield, Mass., was not fair. On Monday, a judge dealt a blow to those developers, who are vowing to continue with their lawsuit all the same.
In a decision filed this week, Superior Court Judge David Hodge denied requests for an injunction and restraining order - both targeting the group picked to build the proposed “Springfield Regional Justice Center.”
However, the plaintiffs -- limited liability companies USPB JV and Springfield Tower Square – say they will be appealing the decision.
Both developers submitted bids for the courthouse project last year, and, since July, say the process used to select the winning bid was tainted.
It was the subject of a hearing on Aug. 11.
“We are here, today, because the process that DCAMM undertook was, unfortunately, not up to the task,” Attorney John Butts said in Hampden County Superior Court – one of the courts that would be moved from the Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse to the new justice center. “DCAMM acted arbitrarily and capriciously in conditionally selecting a proposal whose headliners were two political insiders - a sitting, high-level state official in Mr. John Barros, and the husband of a member of Congress in Mr. [Conan] Harris… at the very least, that selection raises an appearance of impropriety.”
Two months ago, Massachusetts' Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance -- or DCAMM -- announced the state would be moving forward with the Liberty Junction development team, which has proposed building a $600 million courthouse off Liberty Street.
The team included CoJo Partners, a firm led by Conan Harris, the husband of Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, and John Barros, who, after the bid was submitted last year, was named interim head of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority in January.
Barros later divested from the project last month amid the legal challenge. In their initial complaint, the plaintiffs singled him out, questioning whether he properly disclosed his ties with CoJo to the state.
During that same Aug. 11 hearing, however, attorneys representing DCAMM and Maintenance and Liberty Junction said Barros went out of his way to obey the state’s Conflict of Interest Law.
They also argued Barros's firm was not the primary force behind Liberty Junction, but FD Stonewater - a firm with offices in Virginia and California.
“… the plaintiffs also claim that they have a likelihood of success based on John Barros's involvement - that claim is without merit and is basically imagination… as the affidavits submitted by DCAMM established, the selection committee did not speak to Mr. Barros, the trial court did not speak to Mr. Barros…” said attorney Nicholas Ogden said, rebutting claims of impropriety during the procurement process. “The Liberty Junction team member… FD Stonewater - was taking the primary role rather than Mr. Barros’s company, CoJo...”
Representing DCAMM, Ogden emphasized how Barros sought out the State Ethics Commission’s legal counsel for guidance well-before Liberty Junction’s selection in late-June, and that Barros did file disclosures with the state at a proper time.
In his decision, Judge Hodge appeared to agree, describing how Barros went “above and beyond in ascertaining and then fulfilling his obligations” under state law. He also noted Barros had sought both the ethics commission’s and MCCA’s legal counsels for guidance before becoming a state employee.
Hodge also took aim at the plaintiffs alleging DCAMM, the state division, had violated the commonwealth’s Conflict of Interest Law itself. The judge went as far as to say DCAMM is not a state employee and questioned the logic of applying a law intended for individuals against the entity itself.
However, as the plaintiffs said Monday, Hodge’s decision was not the end. In a statement, the passed-over developers said while their injunction request was denied, it only affected a pause on the leasing process DCAMM and Liberty Junction still have to hash out -- a potential $2 billion contract and 40-year lease.
Ultimately, as attorney Butts stated during the hearing, the plaintiffs are not looking to have the project scrapped altogether. Instead, they want it put out for bid again.
The process would be a familiar one for the state at this point – the Department of Transportation recently restarted its search for a service plaza manager after the company it picked, Applegreen, withdrew last year – all amid a legal challenge mounted by a rival bidder.
Speaking with WAMC before the August hearing, Western Mass Politics and Insight Editor-in-Chief Matt Szafranski noted parallels between the two situations – and that there was nothing frivolous about the plaintiffs enlisting the storied law firm, WilmerHale.
“I think that's probably what they're hoping for,” Szafranski said of the plaintiffs’ motives and a potential rebid. “They’re taking this extremely seriously - I can't emphasize enough that they have decided to hire one of the most powerful law firms in the Commonwealth, in the country, arguably - a law firm that has been targeted by the by the president of the United States… a law firm … [that] was instrumental in the downfall of Joe McCarthy."
In the meantime, the Liberty Junction group said in a statement it appreciated Monday’s ruling, while adding that “none of the claims in the baseless suit filed by the unsuccessful bidders are judged to be valid.”
