Two developers who had competed to construct a new courthouse in Springfield filed a suit in Hampden County Superior Court today — alleging that the group selected for the project had an undisclosed conflict of interest.
Liberty Junction was awarded the bid for the new Springfield Regional Justice Center last Thursday, but one of their principles is John Barros — currently the interim director of a state agency, the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority. The complaint alleges that conflict alone makes them ineligible, but that Liberty Junction also did not comply with other parts of the state's proposal process. The developers want the state to terminate the agreement, or send it back for further review.
James E. “Jeb” Balise, owns USPB JV, LLC and Dinesh Patel owns Springfield Tower Square, LLC. They have jointly filed a verified complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order in Hampden County Superior Court against the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance [DCAMM] and FDS MA Liberty Junction, LLC, seeking to prevent the Commonwealth from finalizing a nearly $2 billion, 40-year lease for the proposed courthouse.
Patel said even though Balise was his competitor, the pair feel the selection process needs to be reviewed.
“Springfield has always been ready to compete on the merits, and today two of us who competed hard against each other are standing together, because this is bigger than any one bid," Patel said.
On January 9 Barros was appointed to the interim position at the MCCA. This was after proposals were submitted in October of last year, but before DCAMM announced the award last week. The authority owns and operates public facilities across the state, including the MassMutual Center in Springfield.
Beyond Barros involvement, the complaint, alleges DCAMM did not require the winning bidders to comply with requirements of the procurement process.
According to the lawsuit, FD Stonewater and Northeastern Investments, two companies under the greater umbrella of Liberty Junction, do not hold the rights to build on the site they bid for, which goes against the RFP's rules for an "eligible proposer".
The lawsuit also claims that the building rights for a "key part" of the site have yet to be negotiated, and as a result, no company currently holds the right to build there.
Lastly, the lawsuit alleges that there are internal discrepancies when it comes to real estate taxes for the site, with one document claiming that the tenants would be paying real estate taxes and another document claiming the lessors would.
“This is not an effort to stop Springfield from getting a new courthouse. It is an effort to prevent the Commonwealth from locking taxpayers into a 40-year lease before serious questions about the award are reviewed," Balise said in a prepared statement.
This is a developing story.
NEPM News Intern Olivia Bodden contributed to this story.
