I I I March 1, 2011 Victoria Hines Staff Attorney . . I . 4 New Orleans Redevelopment Authority 1340 Poydras Street Suite 600 New Orleans, LA 70112 Sent via email and certified US. mail RE: Dear Victoria: Final Payment We have received your letter of February along with the check for $16,070.00. Thank you very much. We remain perplexed, however, by NORA's actions. The nature and specifics of NORA's actions suggest that HC has either offended NORA or failed to meet NORA's expectations. But neither you nor any of your colleagues at NORA have accused HC of wrongdoing or deficient project performance. I will list the facts which fuel our perspective: 0 1|P-age August 27, 2010: NORA and HC entered into an Agreement to design NORA's Section Program. No comprehensive description of this program existed. There were no policies, standards, description of roles and responsibilities, forms, or procedures. HC's subcontractor on this project has been Circular Consulting, LLC, another small, minority-owned consulting business. The Ageement had duration of 12 months (September 15, 2010 through September 15, 2011). The Agreement had a total value of $54,600.00, supported by federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) disaster funds. The Agreement contained Termination for Cause, Termination for Convenience, Voluntary Termination, and Termination by Expiration provisions. The Agreement contained seven (7) specific tasks (under a Scope of Services). November 9, 2010: Troy Henry and I met with Melissa Ehlinger, NORA Project Manager, to discuss the continuation of the project following the departure of HC's project manager, Dana Henry. 0 Under Dana's guidance at least one of the deliverables under the Agreement had been completed before his departure. November 17, 2010: I submitted a series of questions to Melissa, the answers to which would be used to adjust the steps to execute the project. November I8, 2010: 0 Melissa sent an email assuring us that she was "tracking down the answers" to the questions. November 23, 2010: I sent Melissa an email as a friendly reminder to provide answers to the questions. 0 Melissa responded to the email saying that she had just communicated with Serena Neal-Sanjuijo to get answers to the questions. December 6, 2010: 0 Troy and I met with NORA for a project update. During the meeting, the questions were answered and we discussed and agreed upon the next steps in the project. December 9, 2010: 0 Serena sent us a letter in follow--up to the project update meeting, and provided us with NORA's EA with the City of New Orleans. December 13, 2010: I sent NORA a "rough draft" of the next scheduled project deliverables. December 20, 2010: I sent NORA an "official draft" of the next scheduled project deliverables. December 22, 2010: I sent Melissa an inventory of the status of the seven (7) project tasks. This inventory clarified the adjustments to the steps to execute the project, while preserving the Scope of Services. Also, accompanying the inventory was a recommended billing schedule. January 5, 2011: I sent Melissa an updated version of the scheduled project deliverables. This was in the form of a comprehensive NORA Section Program document. This document describes the NORA Section Program from A to Z, including legal authority, policies, procedures, definitions, roles and responsibilities, certifications, compliance guidelines, bid instructions, etc. In two subsequent emails, I sent Melissa the I I forms to be used by NORA in the execution of the Section Program. 0 Melissa sent me an email which stated, "We are good to meet on Friday at 2:30 here at NORA's offices to discuss the latest deliverables and invoice, along with next steps." 0 January 7, 2011: I met with NORA and was informed that the Agreement was being terminated for convenience. I asked if the termination had anything to do with the quality of HC's work, and in response, I was told no. I was told that NORA was simply reevaluating its approach to the Section Program, including a reassessment of its resources to execute the program. Victoria provided encouraging words by saying that HC should not hesitate to bid on future NORA projects. I was told that HC would be sent a Letter ofTermination which would address the last invoice payment. 0 January 10, 2011: 0 HC received NORA's Letter of Termination. The letter did not address the last invoice payment. I responded to the Letter of Termination, inquiring about payment of the last invoice. I asserted that the last invoice payment due was $31,980.00. Victoria responded and basically said that our request would be taken under consideration. Of the $54,600.00 total value of the Agreement, less than 10% had been paid to HC 0 February 3,2011: 0 After several unanswered calls and emails to Melissa, Serena, and Victoria, I sent an email to them inquiring about the status of the final invoice payment. Victoria responded, saying, in pertinent part, "We anticipate forwarding payment for services satisfactorily performed within the next several weeks." I responded to Victoria's email requesting more specifics. No response was given. On average, NORA has submitted payment on HC invoices within thirty (30) calendar days. 0 February 16, 2011: 3|i HC received a letter from Victoria, along with the $16,070.00 check, which is approximately one--half the amount of the invoice submitted. In pertinent part, Victoria's letter states, "Please be advised that this represents final payment for all services performed satisfactorily by Henry Consulting, LLC on our behalf and in connection with the former agreement." This payment, coupled with the previous $4,000.00 payment, amounts to 37% of the total value of the Agreement. NORA has not provided any explanation for the reduced invoice payment. HC and Circular Consulting completed, at minimum, 66% of the scope of services, but arguably more. lt Ironically, the Section Program designed by HC and Circular Consulting (both DBE firms) is intended to provide uniform standards and procedures for NORA to more effectively engage the services of certified Section 3 and DBE firms in the greater New Orleans region. The document delivered to NORA, along with the 11 forms, is practically a complete guide for NORA's execution of a Section Program. Yet, NORA has terminated this project for convenience and refuses to fully compensate the two DBE firms which prepared the guide. At minimum, HC and Circular Consulting deserve an explanation of your decision to pay us only half the final invoice. Short of that explanation, we are left to speculate and question NORA's credibility and motives. That is not fair to NORA, HC or Circular Consulting. NORA's actions appear to be arbitrary, in bad faith, and without good cause. Troy and I request an opportunity to meet with you and Joyce Wilkerson at your earliest convenience to have a candid and professional discussion about this matter. We would like to invite Circular Consulting to the discussion. In order to be thorough in this Communication, I am attaching an updated invoice in the amount of $15,910.00, representing the unpaid balance of the final invoice. Please submit payment for this invoice within thirty (30) calendar days. Respectfut submitted, arryl K. Henderson, .D. Managing Director Attachment cc: Joyce Wilkerson Christopher Gobert Serena Neal--Sanju1jo Melissa Ehlinger Troy Henry Erin Threatt Brian Egana Allen Miller, Esq.