Arizona Commerce Authority · Headquarters Lease

They won’t show you the file.

Arizona’s economic development agency ran a seven-month competition for its new headquarters. It never published the scoring criteria. It scored bidders on things it never asked about. It picked the more expensive building, owned from overseas. And it cannot point to a single public vote approving it.

See the scoring matrix Read the documents

0evaluation criteria disclosed in the RFP

35of 100 points scored on criteria found nowhere in the RFP

+28%more space than ACA solicited, on a term 55% longer

9 of 10produced copies of ACA’s workbook contain no scoring at all

The case in four parts

What went wrong

One

A competition with no published rules

The December 1, 2025 RFP is a term sheet. It sets out no criteria, no weights and no scoring methodology, and it never says the award will be made on “best value”: the two things the ACA’s own procurement policy requires for awards over $50,000.

The matrix →

Two

A scorecard that postdates the decision

ACA gave the Court a fifteen-criteria scorecard as the basis for the award. It also produced the spreadsheet the scorecard lives in: ten copies, of which nine contain no scoring at all. The file’s own internals place the matrix after May 26, 2026.

The matrix →

Three

A deal 28% bigger than the one it solicited

The RFP asked for about 35,000 square feet on a five-year term. The executed lease is 44,734 square feet over 93 months, at roughly $35.57 all-in on ACA’s own comparison. No bidder was invited to price that requirement.

The money →

Four

No approval anyone can find

Board agendas, minutes, presentations and meeting recordings were all reviewed. No public vote approving a multi-million-dollar lease has been located, and the ACA has produced none in response to a written demand.

The documents →

Summary

200 East Van Buren scored a perfect 10 out of 10 on price. It finished last.

On the Arizona Commerce Authority’s own scoring sheet, the local building scored 10/10 on “Negotiated $/SF.” The Collier Center, the building the ACA chose, scored 7. On square-footage fit, 200 EVB scored a perfect 10 as well.

Final scores: 200 EVB, 60. Collier Center, 95.

Sixteen points of that gap came from six criteria no bidder was ever told about (“Interim Space on Property,” “Building ownership strength,” “Traffic Considerations,” “Demonstration View from Suite,” “Area Amenities,” “Space Consideration for Partners”). Another nine came from scoring rent concessions that the RFP had expressly instructed bidders to fold into their rate.

“Hard to compete with the value add – and brand – of Sumitomo.” ACA Board member Jack Selby, text message, June 3, 2026; filed as a sworn court exhibit

Take the matrix apart, line by line

The filings

Three dates ACA cannot reconcile

ACA moved to dismiss the case on August 12, 2026. Its motion states that Pivot knew it had lost by June 1, that Pivot protested on June 5, and that ACA selected another proposer on June 12.

If the selection happened on June 12, the June 5 letter did not protest it. If Pivot had already lost by June 1, the June 12 meeting was not the selection. ACA relies on all three propositions in the same filing.

Read the record

The evaluation

ACA gave the Court a scorecard. Nine of the ten copies of the file it lives in contain no scoring at all.

9 of 10produced copies contain no scoring matrix, no criteria and no weights

22the worksheet’s identifier: the highest in the file, so the last ever added

0scoring documents ACA identified when it denied the demand on June 19

0copies of the matrix in the June 12 board packet

The fifteen-criteria matrix

ACA’s brief

The matrix is the evaluation that staff applied to select the Collier Center. ACA’s declarant swears it was presented to the Executive Committee.

The native file

The nine earlier copies of the same workbook were last saved between February 26 and May 28, 2026. None contains a worksheet named “Scoring Matrix,” criteria or weights. The copy filed with the Court was last saved at 10:04 a.m. on June 11, 2026, thirteen minutes after ACA posted the agenda for the next day’s meeting.

Where the matrix appears

The record is silent

Not in the June 12 board packet. Not in the June 19 letter denying Pivot’s demand for the scoring records.

First produced

August 7, 2026, in litigation.

The full analysis

The broker

The RFP said ACA had no broker. ACA later said CBRE represented it.

The Request for Proposal ACA sent to bidders on December 1, 2025 makes a representation about who was on ACA’s side of the table:

“Tenant is represented in this transaction exclusively by ACA’s Senior Real Estate Coordinator, Karyn MacVean.” ACA Request for Proposal, December 1, 2025

The same document states that ACA’s Senior Real Estate Coordinator “shall serve the Tenant as its sole and exclusive agent for this transaction.” Bidders priced against that representation. Pivot’s response to the broker line reads: “None.”

On July 22, 2026, ACA told the Phoenix Business Journal that Scott Baumgarten of CBRE “represented the ACA.” CBRE prepared the April 22, 2026 letter agreement recording that ACA “has agreed on a proposal to lease” the Collier Center. The same CBRE brokers appear in the transaction documents as leasing brokers for the Collier Center landlord.

No engagement letter, commission agreement or agency disclosure has been produced.

Why this shows up in the rent

Leasing commissions are ordinarily paid by the landlord and priced into the rent the tenant pays. A tenant that is told it has no broker, and is later represented by one, is paying for that representation whether or not it ever saw an invoice.

ACA’s own files make the point. The One North Central proposal is $33.00 per square foot full service, below the transaction ACA signed. It is priced, in terms, “based upon no outside brokerage commission to be paid.”

See the economics

Traffic and egress

Six points for “Traffic Considerations”

The matrix gave the Collier Center 6 out of 6 on traffic and gave 200 East Van Buren 4. The two buildings are 0.3 miles apart, a six-minute walk.

13destinations measured across Arizona

0of the thirteen differ by more than a mile

6of the thirteen are faster from 200 East Van Buren

What the mileage misses is how you get in and out. There the ACA scored the worse building higher on all three counts.

Arterial egress. The Collier Center fronts Washington Street, which runs one-way westbound. Going north, south or east means working through a grid of one-way streets first. Van Buren is a two-way arterial: you turn either direction the moment you leave the garage.
Event-day resilience. The Collier Center sits in the immediate blast zone of the Suns arena and Chase Field: roughly 144 regular-season home dates a year, before a single playoff game, concert or convention. On those afternoons Washington and Jefferson come to a standstill and staff are trapped in the parking garages. 200 East Van Buren sits four blocks north, outside that footprint.
Freeway proximity. Both look close on a map. From Van Buren it is a clean run to the I-10 / 7th Street interchange or straight west to I-17. Every trip from Washington starts by going the wrong way.

See the drive times and the one-way test

Campaign creative

What the trucks are saying

These are the messages circling downtown Phoenix. Every one of them is a question the Arizona Commerce Authority could answer tomorrow by releasing its procurement file.

Arizona Commerce Authority - Ripping Off Taxpayers

ACA got the view.
You got the bill.