Coincidence, or Maybe Not: Follow up on Karlsruher

The thing about pattern analysis is that sometimes a piece seems unimportant and because of this it is quickly forgotten. However, the small piece may be the item that connects all of the dots in the future. Because of this, it is sometimes very difficult to make a determination if an action warrants further study or if it is just a waste of time.

Many years ago I started building a database of as many data points as I had the resources and the time to compile so that I could use them later in analysis for my blogging.  Initially it was about throwing everything, but the kitchen sink, into the data set and worry about analyzing it later. It quickly became information overload. Therefore I decided to spend some time analyzing the data before adding it in order to make a determination if it warranted being added to my archive.

However, almost immediately it became apparent to me that I was soon wasting too much time following rabbit holes and not much time actually producing something useful. In time, I decided to create a hybrid system whereby I attempted to create something useful from the immediate item I was looking at, at the time and if the initial review warranted it, I would add it to the database. This is not the perfect solution however I have yet to discover a better way of doing it.

Today, I’m going to share something with you what I noticed shortly after I published my piece on David Karlsruher. At this point I’m not sure if it really means anything but the pattern I am seeing warrants further investigation, at least for me, and adding it to my matrix.

I have never met Emma Acosta and as much as David Karlsruher tries to connect me with her the fact is that there is no connection to make. I noticed David’s ardent support for the baseball fiasco and it naturally caught my attention that he was attacking Emma Acosta. I inquisitively asked why. In “The Motives of Useful Idiot David Karlsurher” I laid out a pattern of his family’s business growth that I derived from the information I had at hand.

As I researched this I saw David Karlsruher start writing pieces about Emma Acosta that he derived from an open records requests he submitted about her. To be sure this was not the first time David Karlsruher had targeted Emma Acosta with his articles as his favorite targets seemed to be anyone against the ballpark fiasco. In the time span of June through August 2013, David posted an approximate average of 17 posts each month for a total of 51 total posts. In August he posted 21 posts of which three were about Emma Acosta (14%). In July he posted 11 posts, one of which was about Acosta (>10%). And, in June, of his 19 posts, three were about Emma Acosta (16%). For comparison, I went and looked at his posts for September 2012.

In that month he posted a total of 16 posts, four of which related to Emma Acosta (25%). The majority of David’s posts were not about pointing out political shenanigans but rather they seemed to follow two threads; (1) create the illusion that Stephanie Townsend Allala’s demand for transparency was having a chilling effect on officials using electronic devices to communicate, and (2) to embarrass Emma Acosta.

On September 10, after I published my piece on his possible motives David Karlsruher responded almost immediately with two pieces on that day, then a piece on the Times’ report about the Basilio Silva corruption topic followed by a piece on Emma Acosta as result of city council discussion regarding bloggers and access to information.

And then silence.

As of last week’s (September 17) city council David Karlsruher has been quiet on the blogosphere. Yes, he did write that he is traveling; however I noticed what looked like to me to be a pattern, a silent one in all aspects.

At yesterday’s city council meeting, item number 11D in the consent agenda that was approved by council, Karlsruher , Inc. dba CSA Constructors was awarded an estimated award of $330,942.41.

Now don’t get too excited this isn’t about his mom’s company getting the award but rather a pattern I noticed.

You will remember that on my earlier piece I wrote that the Karlsruher’s were awarded a $691,557.35 contract after being deemed an “unresponsive bidder” by city staff with city council ultimately ignoring staff and awarding the contract to them anyway on a vote of five-to-three. I didn’t write it then, but I found it ironic that the person who David had been targeting the most recently was the one that advocated for his family getting the contract by making the motion to award it.

So much for David’s writings alleging harassment of his family’s business by Acosta.

For public perception manipulators frequently the truth is an inconvenient thing. However this is not about the inconvenience but rather about a pattern I see.

In the Barker Road Street award on February 26, 2013 (Item 12) you will notice that the Karlsruher firm’s bid for that project was deemed “not responsive” and therefore the city’s Engineering & Construction Management Department recommended that the city “reject” their bid, although they were the lowest bidder. The reason for the department’s rejection of the bid was that the “Insurance, Bonds, and move-In/Move-Out Related Expenses”, in other words mobilization costs, were not to exceed five percent of the total bid. Karlsruher came in at 5.05%, according to the documentation.

The second highest bidder was SAAB Site Contractor, LP. who were $13,239.85 above Karlsruher. At the city council meeting, the council was asked to first determine if, in fact Karlsruher was “responsive” and then award them the contract based on their lower bid. The Karlsruher’s had argued that it was a “mathematical error” and therefore they deserved the contract.

As you already know they were awarded the contract on a motion by Emma Acosta seconded by Carl Robinson.

Fast-forward to yesterday.

Item 11D in the consent agenda again involves Barker Road Street. This time it is labeled as “Phase II” and is in the amount of $330,942.41. Interestingly it involves the same two bidders; Karlsruher, Inc. dba CSA Constructors of El Paso and SAAB Site Contractors, LP.

However, this time it was SAAB Site Contractors that were deemed “non responsive” because their bid came in over the five percent mobilization costs. It actually came in at nine percent. Although SAAB submitted a bid of $321,783.00 that is lower than Karlsruher’s bid of $330,942.41; a $9,159.11 difference they were deemed “un responsive” and therefore Karlsruher was awarded the contract. Since the item was handled in the consent agenda there was no discussion about it.

And now here is the pattern that I noticed.

  • David Karlsruher goes on an uncharacteristic blog silence especially with all the recent hoopla surrounding the ballpark and the email scandal.
  • Coincidently, on yesterday’s consent agenda an item appears that results in another award for the Karlsruher family business in the amount of $330,942.41.

Like I wrote above, I’m not sure what it all means at this point but a pattern exists that, as more information comes to light may connect some dots. In fact, I probably would not have noticed these two items had I not looked into possible motives for David Karlsruher’s blog postings. Take it as you will. It may result in nothing, however as my experience has shown over the years one item by itself may seem innocent at the time until it becomes that single piece the connects all of the dots.

Author’s note: At 9:11am on Setpember 25, 2013, El Paso time I went back and checked the city council video, and David Karlsruher is correct that the item was postponed for two weeks. No reason was given.

A quick note on ramping up useful idiots

By the way, if you haven’t noticed election season is starting up again. As a result, the stable of useful idiot dormant bloggers are starting to be activated. At least one dormant blogger is starting to blog again. I’ll be keeping an eye out to see if this is an activation of one or more useful idiots in the continued quest to manipulate the public perception.

14 thoughts on “Coincidence, or Maybe Not: Follow up on Karlsruher

  1. I stopped reading when you asserted that the bid was awarded to my parents. It was not. It was postponed two weeks and will be awarded to the low bidders for exactly the same reaseon Phase 1 was awarded to my parent’s firm.

    Boy, if the facts only lined up with your idiotic assertions you’d really have something, wouldn’t you?

    If I wanted Acosta’s vote, why would I leave for a week and have an email from her at the top of my blog the entire time?

    Gotta love it. You are terrible at blogging.

  2. I like when you write about David K

    He’s one of the few that come on here, uses his name, and counters your posts.

    “And then silence.”

    Your last post on David K he posted that his company, or parents company, changed names and you didn’t check.

    I was looking for a good follow up on that…

  3. As this error-filled post indicates once again, you are the only identifiable idiot, and not even a useful one at that.

    Why don’t you respond to David K’s points of fact? Why your own silence? What have you to hide?

    I guess you can say I’m a dormant blogger too. But, since I haven’t written anything since 1924, maybe I should take up this blogging thing. As you demonstrate, you need neither skill nor facts to write endless name-calling screeds.

  4. I went back and listened to the city council video and David Karlsruher is correct, I missed the postponement of the Item 11D for two weeks. (34:53). There was no reason given at city council for the postponement. I have updated the post to reflect this fact.

    @ep_reader: I am looking into David’s assertions but it takes time to search for all of the possible company names the company may be under. After that I need to submit open records requests to the city and wait ten days for the responses. You should note that my original open records request asked for information on four different company names and I received a response under one company name; CSA Design Group. I will follow up on this once I have more information.

    Thank you all for your participation.
    Martin

  5. Martin,

    that’s great that you corrected the record, but doesn’t that correction completely destroy your whole theory here? There can be no second shooter on the grassy knoll if there is no grassy knoll… right?

    1. David,
      Not so fast. My original premise still holds true; your parent’s business is still in contention for the contract and you were un characteristically silent on your blog. Like, I wrote, I’m not sure if it is an issue, or could become one but the pattern was interesting for me.

      As for the “grassy knoll”, as they say one person’s conspiracy is another’s truth. Perception is reality and we each have our own perceptions.

      Thanks for reading,
      Martin

    1. Sorry brownfield, you seem to be an equal opportunity commenter. There is someone else that recently started up again. We’ll see where they go with their blog.

      Thanks for your participation,
      Martin

  6. 2012 Texas Municipal Procurement Laws
    MADE EASY
    http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/pdfs/procurement_easy.pdf

    “A city that chooses to award a competitive bid or competitive proposal based on “best value”
    criteria may consider “the impact on the ability of the municipality to comply with laws and rules
    relating to contracting with historically underutilized businesses and nonprofit organizations
    employing persons with disabilities” or “any other relevant criteria” listed by the city in the
    specifications.
    Some cities have used these provisions to continue seeking to procure services
    from historically underutilized businesses. In any case, a city may consider a factor that is not
    related to the bidder’s capacity to fulfill the contract only when state law specifically authorizes
    the city to take that factor into account.
    When is a city required to contact historically underutilized businesses?
    A city must contact at least two historically underutilized businesses if the city makes an
    expenditure of between $3,000 and $50,000.
    If the expenditure is for less than $3,000 or for
    more than $50,000, this special notification requirement would not apply. To determine what
    businesses within the county are classified as historically underutilized businesses, the city
    should use the list of such businesses provided by the Comptroller’s Office.
    If there are more
    than two such businesses in the county, the city can contact the listed businesses on a rotating
    basis. Even if the historically underutilized businesses in the county do not provide the goods or
    services that the city needs, at least two of those businesses must be contacted.180 The city is only
    excused from this notification requirement if there are no such businesses located in the county
    in which the city is located.”

  7. This is extremely important information for El Paso Citizens. It merits closer scrutiny anytime large monies are being awarded to ANY contractor. While the rest of the El Paso media has their head in their backside I am glad to come here for a break down on important issues. The dots connected, in my opinion, merit a closer look at the contract and definitely a much closer look at the city council.

    thanks for the supporting info on the Procurement laws.

  8. so the city will actually save money even though the mobilization costs are above the threshold. the city will save money going with the CSA firm who has not had any complaints. martin, have a double of chivas and relax. you need to find something true. go look at the psb. leave this alone. its moot. and anyway Acosta is calling so answer the phone

Don't hold back, you know you want to comment, go for it!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.