The Fort Hancock procurement described by Barry T. Sullivan, general superintendent of the Gateway National Recreation Area, addressed in his letter to local newspapers is not the Fort Hancock procurement that I have experienced personally for eight years.

But, first things first: The document signed on July 9, 2004, by the National Park Service (NPS) and Sandy Hook Partners is not a lease/contract, due to the very significant and important defect of Sandy Hook Partners' offer; that is, a lack of funding which was required of all offerers, on Nov. 8, 1999. Sandy Hook Partners continues, still, to be deficient in the area of funding a full nine years and eight months later.

Sullivan's statement that all phases of the Fort Hancock procurement "have been done in full consultation with government attorneys, government contract specialists, and business management professionals" may actually be true.

However, based upon how this procurement has been conducted by the NPS for an unheard of procurement period of over 10 years, I believe that the government attorneys and contract specialists which the NPS used and consulted with were selected not for their proficiency and guidance, but for their compliancy with NPS objectives.

As for the business management professionalswhich the NPS relied upon, they were apparently "hired guns" who also would support the desires of the NPS.

Sullivan's reference to two federal courts having examined every detail of the process is blatantly untrue. The two federal courts in question never examined the extensive list of defects, especially the procurement errors that were committed by the NPS in this procurement.

Why, you ask? Because the courts opined that the plaintiff, Save Sandy Hook, did not have standing, and therefore the courts need not examine the extensive listing of serious defects and flaws.

As for the Department of the Interior Inspector General's comments concerning this procurement, particularly the numerous procurement flaws which were first brought to his attention in December 2002, the inspector general brushed them off. That changed very late in the procurement process on Nov. 3, 2008, when in a letter sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., the inspector general, finally admitted that there were serious procurement problems and defects that required correction.

This much-delayed inspector general admission of the existence, and use by the NPS of a flawed procurement system came much too late, and was ignored by the National Park

Service for this procurement.

As for the NPS's transparency of process and consideration of public comment, which Sullivan so touted, these "dog and pony" shows (or should I say public meetings) were held for the sham purpose of giving the impression of being open to change. But no changes which made the procurement process more honest ever resulted area from them.

And, as for the "public ceremony" award of the July 9, 2004, purported lease, which Mr. Sullivan so extols, it was done so quietly that Rep. Pallone and his staff were still trying to finalize arrangements for a meeting whose purpose was to arrive at an alternate plan which did not involve commercial development.

As for the local newspapers, to the best of my knowledge, they too were not invited to the signing ceremony. So who was there Mr. Sullivan, other than the National Park Service and Sandy Hook Partners?

I am not personally aware of how long Mr. Sullivan has served as the General Superintendent, Gateway National Recreation Area. But surely his staff, and access to NPS files should have precluded him from making so many errors in his July 23 defense of the Fort Hancock procurement. It would appear that Sullivan has a lot to learn about the 10-year debacle otherwise known as the Fort Hancock/ Sandy Hook procurement if he wishes to be factual, and not just attempt to cover up National Park Service errors.

Peter P. O'Such Jr. is a resident of Fair Haven.