Palomar Airport: How to Lose $675,000!, Blog 84

On 3/19/13, the County asked for an FAA McClellan–Palomar (Palomar) airport master plan grant:

“We recommend our existing as–needed consultant, Kimley-Horn … for this project. There is adequate capacity remaining on this contract . . . advertised in 2008.  . . . . With regard to comprehensive planning, our intent was to include master planning as part of the scope.… We are requesting your concurrence in order to proceed ….”

In 2013 Kimley ended the Palomar runway study and endorsed a 900-foot extension.  Kimley received nearly $750,000 for the work.  Even though Kimley had already worked for the county for nearly 5 years, county wanted to continue Kimley services.  But county meeting notes dated 6/12/13 say:

“The County’s proposed use of the existing 2008 as – needed contract (Awarded to Kimley-Horn) was deemed by FAA staff to not meet the procurement  requirements of FAA AC 150/5100 – 14 section 2–6 policy for Selection.”  … the proposed Palomar Airport Master Plan Scope of Services would not qualify for reimbursement using FAA funds.”

On 8/1/13 the county withdrew its grant application:

“On March 19, 2013, the County … submitted a grant application to FAA requesting ... $675,000 for the McClellan– Palomar Airport Master Plan. This letter is to inform you of the County’s decision to officially withdraw the grant application. We are no longer seeking federal Airport Improvement program (AIP) funds and will pay for this project using available funds in our Airport Enterprise Fund.”

County nixed its grant request to avoid the embarrassment of the FAA denying it.  So we are left with these questions:

• Did county Airports tell the Board of Supervisors that Airports had lost a $675,000 grant because it did not follow FAA procurement procedures?

• What other grants have the Airports Division and other county agencies lost?

• Why did  Airports opt to lose $675,000?  The county could have held a new planning consultant process meeting FAA needs. Kimley could have proposed and may have won. Kimley would have had a “leg-up” due to its runway study work. But other consultants – who have been shut out of the process for five years – could have competed. 

• What’s the hurry?  County tells us it has no hotfoot to expand Palomar. Yet the county loses $675,000 to keep Kimley working.  Why?

• Does the $675,000 lost grant explain county’s refusal to produce records in reply to this author’s request for Kimley Runway Study working records?  Does the county fear that the Kimley records will not support county’s  upcoming $60 million FAA runway extension grant application?

 Has the Board of Supervisors asked these questions?  If not, why not?