Attorney general ignores procurement regulations in extending statehood defense contract for former AG

Former Attorney General Craig Richards, now the Dunleavy administration’s statehood defense coordinator, and Attorney General Tregarrick Taylor have signed an amended contract that violates state procurement regulations, paying Richards $12,000 a month.

Taylor is supposed to oversee the enforcement of state law and state regulations. There is no enforcement of the regulations by any entity beyond the attorney general’s office, though the regulations are supposed to have the force of law.

The Dunleavy administration chose Dunleavy ally Richards last June to serve as the latest “statehood defense coordinator” for $12,000 a month. The amended contract, released under a public records request, continues that arrangement until May 31.

Richards is a trustee of the Alaska Permanent Fund, representing the public, not the Dunleavy administration. Serving as statehood defense coordinator, a political job under the attorney general and Dunleavy, is a conflict of interest.

Richards was hired to “coordinate strategies and budgets for bringing/overseeing statehood defense cases, lead the inter-agency sub-cabinet meetings on statehood defense issues, and upon request, attend metings and events by phone or in person related to Alaska’s efforts to coordinate statehood defense matters with other states and parties.”

The Department of Law hired Richards last summer under a “small purchases” regulation that said the contract would cost no more than $50,000.

Citing that small purchase regulation as the authority for the Richards contract allowed the attorney general to avoid competition and steer the contract to Richards without having to ask any other potential statehood defense coordinator candidates.

But it meant the department had to keep the cost under $50,000 to remain legal.

There are procurement regulations that allow a single-source contract and require a written explanation about why competition is not in the state’s best interest and establish other hurdles. The attorney general did not chose to hire Richards under those rules.

The law department contract claimed that his total compensation would be less than $50,000, but it also said he would be getting paid for seven months, meaning it would really cost at least $84,000.

That means the contract was illegal under the small purchase regulation—2 AAC 12.400(b)7.

The attorney general’s office knew from the start that the contract was not allowed under the small purchase regulation, but it went ahead anyway, planning to amend the total compensation to pay Richards at least $84,000.

For contracts greater than $50,000 and less than $100,000, state procurement regulations require soliciting at least three firms or individuals for quotes in writing, reviewing the responses, selecting the lowest bidder or the “most advantageous” offer and providing written notice and options for protest. The attorney general didn’t do any of that.

In amending the Richards contract, Taylor has now abandoned the pretense that it was a “small purchase” of less than $50,000.

Now the pretense is that the contract will cost no more than $100,000 and expire at the end of May.

The regulation cited as justification for amending the financial terms and extending the contract is 2 AAC 12.475 (a), which refers to a boilerplate provision in contracts that says the state may amend the terms. The state seems to think this is a get out of jail free card.

It does not excuse or erase the original problem—the false claim that the contract would cost no more than $50,000, when the state and Richards knew that was not true.

But just as with the original contract, the numbers on the amended version don’t add up.

The total cost is not going to be $100,000 if he is employed until May 31 at $12,000 a month. It will be closer to $140,000.

That means either the contract will have to be amended again to add about $40,000 to keep paying Richards until the end of May or he will stop billing the state by the end of February.

These are the state procurement regulations.

I repeat what I said in this space in November:

A key part of statehood defense, it seems to me, is defending the laws of the state. Setting an artificially low contract number to avoid competitive bids, with both sides knowing an increase was coming later, is indefensible. And this from the state’s chief law enforcement official and a former chief law enforcement official.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.

Write me at dermotmcole@gmail.com.