Building trades unions squawk at Ducks’ no-bid contracting

Oregon’s State Board of Higher Education voted at its June 4 meeting to allow a private group to build a new soccer and lacrosse complex, and improvements to the existing Len Casanova Athletic Center — on land belonging to University of Oregon. The buildings would then be given to the university, and would be operated and maintained with funds from UO athletic department revenues and gifts.

Representatives of Oregon building trades unions are concerned that the project is set up that way to skirt competitive bidding and public disclosure requirements, and possibly avoid the obligation to pay construction workers the prevailing wage. Answering some of these concerns, the Board spelled out that the licensee, Phit LLC, will comply with prevailing wage standards, and make a good faith effort to employ emerging small businesses and businesses owned by women and minorities.

Phit, a subsidiary of the University of Oregon Foundation, constructed the recently-opened John E. Jaqua Academic Center for Student Athletes on the same model; both projects are funded with donations from Nike founder Phil Knight.

Even so, the arrangement appeared to be controversial to the Board, and passed with six ‘yes’ votes and four abstentions. Some Board members voiced their discomfort over pressure to approve the deal immediately, without time to have their questions answered.

“If it’s not approved today, it’s the end of the deal,” UO president Richard Lariviere told Board members. “I’m convinced it’s not a negotiating tactic or ploy. That’s a hard line.”

“I asked the question, ‘Why this structure at all? Why not just make a donation to the university to get this done?’” Lariviere said. “And the answer I was given is that on two previous occasions, that’s exactly what the donors did, and the cost overruns were over 30 percent, and the delays were over a year.”

Building trades leaders dispute that claim, and say the issue is transparency.

“We just want it to be done above board and fairly,” said John Endicott, business manager of United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 290. “If our contractors don’t get the work and it’s done fairly, that’s life in the business,” Endicott told the Labor Press. “If it’s not done fairly, and somebody’s been cheated out of an opportunity for work, that’s not right.”

Other UO athletic construction projects give Endicott cause for concern. After the Oregon Legislature voted in 2008 to approve $200 million in bonds to construct the UO’s Matthew Knight basketball arena, UO used an emergency clause to select a general contractor for the project without a competitive bidding process. National Championship Properties, which got the no-bid contract, is also a subsidiary of the University of Oregon Foundation. Later, a union subcontractor submitted the low bid, and then was called back multiple times for interviews by the general contractor, before losing out to another firm. UO didn’t cooperate with requests for information.

All that and more was laid out by John Williams, a researcher employed by Local 290, at a May 24 hearing of the Oregon Senate Business and Transportation Committee. The Oregon Secretary of State’s office is reviewing an independent audit of the arena project.

Williams was at the Higher Ed Board meeting as well, and asked the Board to commit that no public money will later be used to fund this project. At the Jaqua Center, UO administrators repeatedly claimed that project was built entirely with private money, Williams said, but his research revealed that $333,000 of public money was diverted from the Knight arena project to pay for Jaqua Center landscaping.

Williams also asked the Board to bar subcontractors from bidding if they’ve had a history of wage violations or failing building code inspections.

Bob Shiprack, executive secretary of the Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council, also addressed the Board: “When we’ve got this many people out of work and desperate, it’s our responsibility as labor leaders to make sure that our contractors have a fair shot at those jobs.”

Board president Paul Kelly asked Shiprack: “Do your members want this project to happen, if it’s a choice of project or no project?

“We just want a process that’s transparent,” Shiprack replied, “so that we know that a true competitive low bid is what we’re getting, and that workers are treated fairly on the job.”

Home | About