Despite the culmination of two court actions, the egregious manner in which the National Park Service (NPS) has conducted the Fort Hancock procurement has never been subjected to the scrutiny of the courts. The charges of procurement regulation errors/violations have never been examined in either of the two court decisions.

The truth be known, U.S. Federal District Court of Judge Mary Little Cooper never officially commented on or ruled on the procurement errors. This can be verified by reading her two decisions. Her basis for doing so was: the plaintiff, Save Sandy Hook (SSH), lacked standing because it had not submitted a bid, i.e., responded to the Request for Proposal. Using this ploy, the court was able to wash its hands of having to review what some have said are the most important charges put forth by the suit against the NPS in both court decisions.

As for the belief that the Interior Department Inspector General (IG) had reviewed and refuted in 2003 and 2004 opponents' charges that the Fort Hancock procurement was riddled with obvious errors and should be stopped, this is an incorrect assumption as well. In response to my initial attempt to bring these matters to light, the IG stated that the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) cited in my letter as having been violated were not applicable in this case.

The IG further stated that procurement regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) were instead applicable for the Fort Hancock procurement. I obtained a copy of procurement regulations and upon examination, found that they were virtually the same as the FAR regulations, and the NHPA regulations had been violated numerous times by the NPS in its conduct of the Fort Hancock procurement.

Findings of procurement wrongdoing by the NPS remain unanswered and unrefuted by either the U.S. Federal District Court or the IG. Together with Congressman Frank Pallone - who requested last July that the IG investigate whether the Fort Hancock procurement was done legally - those of us who oppose the NPS' plan to commercialize Fort Hancock properties also look forward to obtaining the results of this investigation into this procurement, which has been called a "debacle" by Congressman Pallone.

I sincerely hope that Congressman Pallone's request for this IG investigation which remains still unanswered, will expose the illegality of how the NPS conducted the Fort Hancock procurement, particularly since the NPS' plan for Fort Hancock has been proposed as a prototype for the entire National Park System.

Additionally, the public anxiously awaits the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, where Save Sandy Hook is appealing the prior court decision. Let us hope that this court finally focuses on the NPS' procurement deficiencies and puts an end to their plan to commercialize Fort Hancock and other national parks.

Peter P. O'Such Jr.

Fair Haven