Analysis

The scoring matrix, line by line

ACA gave the Superior Court a fifteen-criteria scorecard and described it as the evaluation on which the award was made. The file it came out of tells a different story about when it was written.

Provenance

The document ACA calls its evaluation did not exist when the evaluation happened

What ACA told the Court

On August 7, 2026, ACA filed the scoring matrix with the Superior Court and described it as the basis for the award. Its brief states that staff recommended the Collier Center “[a]pplying the scoring matrix developed by ACA related to the items solicited as part of the RFP.” Its declarant swears the matrix was presented to the Executive Committee.

What the produced file shows

The filing came nearly eight months after proposals were submitted, and three weeks after Pivot sued. In the same production, ACA turned over the native spreadsheet the matrix lives in: ten copies of the same workbook, saved at ten points across the procurement.

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

What the file says about itself

The nine earlier copies have no scoring in them. They were last saved on February 26, April 1, April 13 (twice), April 22, May 22, May 26 (twice) and May 28, 2026. Not one contains a worksheet named “Scoring Matrix.” Not one contains criteria, weights or scores of any kind.

The matrix is the last worksheet ever added to the file. Excel assigns each worksheet a sequential identifier when it is created and does not reuse them. “Scoring Matrix” carries identifier 22, the highest in the workbook. Identifier 21 first appears in the copy saved on May 26. On the file’s own internal evidence, independent of any clock or copy date, the matrix was added after May 26, 2026.

The vocabulary is new too. “Maximum Points,” “Rent Abatement,” “Interim Space on Property,” “Building ownership strength,” “Traffic Considerations,” “Area Amenities” and “Space Consideration for Partners” appear nowhere in the copy saved on May 28.

The last save is timed. 10:04 a.m., June 11, 2026, thirteen minutes after ACA posted the agenda for the June 12 meeting.

The matrix is in no contemporaneous record of the decision it is said to have driven.

The Executive Committee that authorized the transaction on June 12 was not shown it. On June 19, ACA’s General Counsel identified no matrix, no criteria, no score and no ranking, and attached nothing: he wrote that Pivot’s elimination “was based on material and substantive evaluation of the proposal and the offered space.” The matrix was produced for the first time on August 7, in litigation. The dates, in sequence →

The footnote

A footnote was rewritten in the same editing session

Beside the moving-cost figures charged against the competing buildings, seven successive versions of ACA’s workbook carry the same note.

“* Karyn made this number up.” ACA working comparison workbook, seven successive versions

In the version containing the scoring matrix, the same note reads:

“* Assumption.” ACA working comparison workbook, the version filed with the Court

Karyn MacVean is ACA’s Senior Real Estate Coordinator. She is the person the RFP names as ACA’s “sole and exclusive agent for this transaction,” and she is the sole declarant supporting ACA’s account of the procurement.

Summary

200 EVB won the price score outright. It finished last.

On the ACA’s own matrix, 200 East Van Buren scored a perfect 10 out of 10 on price. It was the only bidder to do so. The Collier Center scored 7.

On square-footage fit, 200 EVB scored a perfect 10 as well, tied with every other bidder. So on the two things a tenant actually shops on, it was best or tied-best. It then lost by 35 points.

60200 EVB final score
95Collier Center final score
35of 100 points scored on criteria found nowhere in the RFP
0evaluation criteria disclosed in the RFP itself
The document

Every line of the matrix

Reproduced from “Project Home Base – Office Lease Comparison Sheet updated 6.9.2026.” Every column below adds to the total the ACA printed on its own document, so none of the scoring is our arithmetic. The final column is ours: whether the RFP the ACA sent to bidders on December 1, 2025 ever asked about that subject.

ACA office lease scoring matrix: all 15 criteria, all four buildings
Criterion Max 200 EVB Collier
Center		 One North
Central		 Renaissance
Square		 Asked for in the RFP?
SF Fit Potential 10 10101010 Stated as a requirement: never as a scored criterion
Negotiated $/SF 10 10786 Rate requested, but no weight disclosed
Conference Center Fit 8 2887 Spec only: a build-out line item, not a criterion
Rent Abatement 7 0767 Told to fold into the rate
Employee Parking Abatement 7 6657 Parking raised: abatement of parking cost never asked
Event Parking Validations 7 3767 Was a mandatory requirement, converted to a preference
Interim Space on Property 7 0777 Nowhere in the RFP
Building ownership strength 6 3646 Nowhere in the RFP
Traffic Considerations 6 4644 Nowhere in the RFP
Demonstration View from Suite 6 4655 Nowhere in the RFP
Total Inducements Package 6 3546 Told to fold into the rate
Area Amenities 5 4555 Nowhere in the RFP
Property Amenities 5 4545 Partly: “please provide building services, amenities”
Visitor Parking Ease 5 3545 Partly: parking was requested, “ease” was not
Space Consideration for Partners 5 4555 Nowhere in the RFP: “partners” is never defined
Total 100 60 95 85 92  

Source: Arizona Commerce Authority, “Project Home Base – Office Lease Comparison Sheet updated 6.9.2026.” Scores transcribed exactly as printed. Download the original document →

Finding one

The RFP disclosed no evaluation criteria at all

The December 1, 2025 RFP is a business-points term sheet. Participants, premises, term, economics, tenant improvements, use, condition of premises, sublease and assignment, parking, signage, HVAC, building services, landlord default, holdover. Bidders were asked to redline the form and send it back.

What the RFP does not contain, anywhere: a list of evaluation criteria. Point values. Weights. A scoring methodology. A description of who would evaluate. Any statement at all about how the winner would be chosen.

The ACA’s own policy required two things it left out

The ACA’s Procurement and Grants Policy (adopted under A.R.S. § 41-2501 and filed as Exhibit A to the verified complaint) requires formal procurements over $50,000 to be awarded “based on criteria established by ACA,” and requires the RFP to “contain language that the award of the contract is based on the evaluation that produces the ‘best value’ for ACA.”

The RFP contains neither. Every one of the fifteen weighted criteria in the matrix is therefore undisclosed relative to what bidders actually saw.

This is not a technicality. It is the whole ballgame. A bidder who knows “Rent Abatement” is worth seven points structures its offer to win those seven points. A bidder told instead to fold abatement into the rate does the opposite. It then gets a zero for it.

Finding two

35 of the 100 points score things the RFP never mentioned

Six criteria in the matrix have no counterpart anywhere in the RFP. Not a heading, not a sentence, not a request for information. Together they carry more than a third of the available score.

Criteria with no corresponding request in the RFP
CriterionPoints 200 EVBCollier Points handed to Collier
Interim Space on Property707+7
Building ownership strength636+3
Traffic Considerations646+2
Demonstration View from Suite646+2
Area Amenities545+1
Space Consideration for Partners545+1
Total351935+16

Sixteen of the thirty-five points separating 200 EVB from the Collier Center came from criteria no bidder could have known existed. Taken one at a time, they get worse.

“Interim Space on Property”

Nowhere in the RFP
Points at stake
7. The single largest undisclosed criterion.
What the RFP asked
Nothing about swing space, temporary space or interim occupancy. The RFP asks for a commencement date of approximately March 1, 2026 and early access to install phones and cabling. ACA did not raise it in seven months of negotiation either, or in the four follow-up demands it sent in December, all of which Pivot met inside a day.
What was scored
Three of the four buildings scored a perfect 7. 200 EVB scored 0, on a question it was never asked, with well over 100,000 square feet sitting available at the time.
Effect on the margin
A fifth of the entire margin of defeat.

“Building ownership strength”

Nowhere in the RFP
Points at stake
6.
What the RFP asked
“Please provide the Landlord name and contact information.” That is the entire inquiry. No bidder was asked for a balance sheet, a financial statement, a lender reference, a credit rating, proof of reserves or an ownership disclosure. None submitted financials, because none were requested.
What was scored
200 EVB, owned by Phoenix residents who reinvest in the building, scored 3. The Collier Center, owned by a subsidiary of the Japanese trading house Sumitomo Corporation, scored 6.
Effect on the margin
There is no record on which a financial-strength judgment could honestly have been made. Six points were awarded on it anyway.
“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 exhibit.

A board member described the deciding factor as the counterparty’s brand. Absent any financial submission, “ownership strength” cannot have measured anything else. Brand is not in the RFP, it is not in the ACA’s procurement policy, and it is not a lawful basis for spending public money.

“Traffic Considerations” and “Demonstration View from Suite”

Nowhere in the RFP
Points at stake
12, across two criteria.
What the RFP asked
Neither word appears in the RFP.
What was scored
Commute convenience and window views. The two buildings are three blocks apart: 0.3 miles, a six-minute walk. We ran the drive times to six Valley destinations and the combined difference is one minute. On the one-way grid, the building that is genuinely harder to get in and out of is the one the ACA chose. The full traffic analysis →
Effect on the margin
More than the entire price criterion.

“Space Consideration for Partners”

Nowhere in the RFP
Points at stake
5.
What the RFP asked
The RFP never uses the word “partners.” It never names a partner, never describes a partner space requirement, never says how much partner space might be needed.
What was scored
Bidders were scored on their ability to house organisations whose existence was never disclosed to them. We genuinely do not know what this criterion means. Neither does any other bidder.
Effect on the margin
What was on offer was Class A space at the lowest rate in the competition, the only 10 out of 10 the ACA awarded on price. Any partner the ACA cared to name could have been housed there, cheaply, had anyone asked.

And there is a constitutional problem with the criterion itself

Set aside that it was undisclosed. A public agency paying extra so that unnamed private parties can be housed is a Gift Clause question in its own right.

Article IX, Section 7 of the Arizona Constitution bars the State from making a donation or subsidy to any individual, association or corporation. Arizona courts count only direct, bargained-for consideration flowing to the public. Schires v. Carlat, 250 Ariz. 371 (2021).

If the State pays a premium so a third party gets space, the benefit runs to that third party. The State receives nothing enforceable in return. That is a Gift Clause problem, and it is one more reason this has no business on a public procurement scorecard, disclosed or not. More on the Gift Clause →

Finding three

The RFP told bidders to fold concessions into the rate. The matrix then scored the folded-in concessions as missing.

This is the mechanism that produced the 35-point rout, and it is worth reading twice.

What the RFP instructed

“Please quote your most competitive Base Rental Rate on a Full Service (FS) Rental Rate basis… Your proposed rate should take into consideration and include all of the business terms and conditions outlined herein. These include the proposed lease term, the required Tenant Improvement Allowance, rent abatement and any other inducements offered.”

Pivot did exactly that. It quoted a single full-service rate with the turn-key build-out at the landlord’s cost, operating expenses inside the rent, and every inducement priced in. That is precisely why 200 EVB scored a perfect 10 out of 10 on price. The concessions were already in the number.

Then the matrix scored those same concessions a second time, as separate line items:

Concession scoring versus price scoring
Line itemPoints200 EVBCollier
Rent Abatement707
Employee Parking Abatement766
Event Parking Validations737
Total Inducements Package635
Concessions, scored separately271225
Actual price10107

Twenty-seven points for how concessions are packaged. Ten points for what the space actually costs. A bidder who followed the RFP’s instruction (put it all in the rate) was penalised nearly three times as heavily as it was rewarded.

200 EVB scored zero out of seven on Rent Abatement for the sin of having already given the money back through a lower rent. That is double jeopardy dressed up as scoring.

And a requirement quietly became a preference

On event parking the RFP was not asking a question. It was stating a term: “Landlord understand[s] Tenant hosts events for up to two hundred (200) guests on a regular basis and shall make available any additional parking spaces at no additional cost to Tenant.”

On December 29, 2025 the ACA asked Pivot to convert its six valet-serviced events into validation hours. On December 30, one day later, Pivot confirmed 1,800 full-day parking validations in writing, along with staff parking in the 2nd Street garage and fifteen reserved executive spaces.

The matrix gave 200 EVB 3 out of 7.

Finding four

The things the RFP actually cared about are worth nothing

The misalignment runs in both directions. While 35 points ride on subjects the RFP never raised, the RFP’s own stated priorities carry no weight at all.

Requested in the RFP, scored at zero
What the RFP asked forWeight in the matrix
Tenant Improvement Allowance and turn-key build-out
The RFP’s longest and most detailed section. A full space program of eighteen numbered items: 4 executive offices, 24 standard offices, 80 workstations, 20 hoteling seats, 5 phone booths, IT room, privacy room, storage, three 10-person meeting rooms, an 18-person room, five 6–8 person rooms, four huddle rooms, and conference rooms configurable to roughly 200 occupancy.		 No dedicated criterion
Only “Conference Center Fit” (8 pts) touches any part of it
Operating Expenses
Requested in detail, with controllable expenses capped at 3% cumulative (a direct, quantifiable taxpayer protection).		 0 points
Signage
“Maximum building facia and monument signage is important to Tenant” (the RFP says so in those words).		 0 points
Base Rental Increases
The escalator that determines what years two through five actually cost.		 0 points
Renewal Options
Two additional three-year terms or one six-year term, at the tenant’s option.		 0 points
Commencement date and early occupancy 0 points
After-hours HVAC availability and cost 0 points
Landlord default remedies
Rent abatement after two days without services; the right to cancel after thirty.		 0 points
Holdover rights 0 points
Sublease and assignment rights 0 points
Condition of the premises
MEP systems, asbestos survey and removal, sprinklers and ADA upgrades. All at the landlord’s cost.		 0 points

Read that list again. The ACA wrote a detailed specification for how it wanted to work. It then judged the competition on views, traffic, interim space and the landlord’s brand.

Two out of eight on the conference centre

On January 30, 2026, at the ACA’s request, Pivot staged an on-site Conference Set-Up Review at 200 East Van Buren, more than 200 chairs physically set out to demonstrate the space held the crowd the ACA said it hosts. ACA staff attended.

Four months later the matrix scored 200 EVB 2 out of 8 on “Conference Center Fit.” The ACA has never explained what it saw in that room that produced a 25% score.

Comparison

Every requirement scored at zero is one 200 EVB was winning

Look again at the list of RFP requirements that carry no weight in the matrix. That list is not random. It is, almost item for item, the part of the deal where the local building was ahead.

What the RFP asked for, what Pivot offered, what the matrix counted
The RFP asked for Pivot’s proposal Weight
Signage
“Maximum building facia and monument signage is important to Tenant”		 Building fascia signage, exclusive to the tenant, with no monthly signage fee for the term or any extension 0
Operating expenses
Controllable expenses capped at 3% cumulative		 No additional operating expense at all: folded into the base rent, so the quoted rate is the rate 0
Base rental increases The lowest escalation in the competition 0
Holdover rights Granted exactly as the RFP drafted them 0
Sublease and assignment Granted exactly as the RFP drafted them, including no landlord share of any sublease income 0
Turn-key build-out and condition of premises Delivered at the landlord’s cost, with MEP, ADA and asbestos work at the landlord’s expense and nothing billed back 0
Class A space A recently renovated Class A tower with well over 100,000 square feet available 0

Seven requirements the ACA wrote into its own solicitation. Seven zeros. Meanwhile 35 points went to interim space, ownership brand, traffic, views, area amenities and “partners” (none of which the RFP mentions).

Score the RFP’s own priorities and the result moves the other way

200 EVB already held the only perfect price score in the competition and a perfect score on square-footage fit. Add weight to the things the ACA said it wanted: signage, capped operating expenses, the lowest escalator, holdover and sublease protections, a turn-key build-out at the landlord’s cost, Class A space. The gap does not narrow. It reverses.

That is the whole problem with an undisclosed scorecard. The criteria that were counted were the ones the winner happened to be good at. The criteria that were written down in advance, and that the losing bidder had actually satisfied, were worth nothing.

Finding five

What the file says about when the matrix was written

ACA produced its working comparison workbook in native form on August 7, 2026: ten copies of the same file, saved at different points in the procurement. The file carries its own internal evidence of when the scoring matrix was added to it.

ACA’s produced workbook copies
What was producedWhat it contains
Nine copies
last saved February 26, April 1, April 13 (twice), April 22, May 22, May 26 (twice) and May 28, 2026		 No worksheet named “Scoring Matrix.” No criteria. No weights. No scores of any kind.
One copy
last saved 10:04 a.m., June 11, 2026		 Contains the fifteen-criteria, hundred-point scoring matrix.

The worksheet is the last one ever added to the file

Excel assigns each worksheet a sequential identifier when it is created, and does not reuse them. In the produced file, “Scoring Matrix” carries identifier 22, the highest in the workbook. Identifier 21, a separate worksheet, first appears in the copy saved on May 26.

That places the scoring matrix after May 26, 2026 on the file’s own internal evidence, independent of any timestamp or copy date.

The vocabulary agrees. “Maximum Points,” “Rent Abatement,” “Interim Space on Property,” “Building ownership strength,” “Traffic Considerations,” “Area Amenities” and “Space Consideration for Partners” appear nowhere in the copy saved on May 28. They are new to the version containing the matrix.

The Executive Committee was not shown it

The June 12 board packet ACA produced consists of the agenda, the February minutes, a briefing memorandum, a one-page property comparison and the resolution. It contains no scoring matrix.

ACA’s August 7 brief states that staff recommended the Collier Center “[a]pplying the scoring matrix developed by ACA related to the items solicited as part of the RFP.” Its declarant swears the matrix was presented to the Committee. The packet ACA produced does not contain it.

Finding six

The sequence

  • December 15, 2025: proposals submitted.
  • April 2026: ACA stops communicating with Pivot. Its own brief states Pivot’s proposal was no longer under consideration in April. Its comparison workbook, saved through late May, contains no scoring of any kind.
  • May 6 and May 12, 2026: ACA’s Chief Operating Officer signs the Proposal to Lease and the related collateral agreement.
  • June 5, 2026: Pivot demands the evaluation record and preservation of documents.
  • After June 5: the scoring matrix appears in ACA’s workbook. Its final save is 10:04 a.m. on June 11, thirteen minutes after the June 12 meeting agenda was posted.
  • June 19, 2026: ACA denies the demand, citing a “material and substantive evaluation.” It identifies no matrix, no score and no ranking, and attaches nothing.
  • August 7, 2026: the matrix is produced for the first time, in litigation.

The demand of June 5 asked expressly for scoring sheets. If a fifteen-criteria evaluation existed on June 19, ACA’s General Counsel had it in front of him when he answered that demand.

One document would settle this: any version of the scoring matrix that existed before June 5, 2026. Pivot has asked ACA to produce it, or to confirm in writing that none exists.

The bottom line

The scoring matrix and the RFP are misaligned in both directions. Roughly a third of the scoring weight rests on criteria never disclosed to bidders, while the RFP’s own stated priorities carry no weight at all: turn-key build-out, signage, operating expense caps, renewal flexibility, landlord default protections. Concession packaging outweighs actual price by 27 points to 10, and the bidder who followed the RFP’s pricing instruction was zeroed out for it.

Add a scoring worksheet that the file’s own internals place after May 26, 2026, roughly six months after the proposals came in and after Pivot had demanded the procurement records, together with the ACA’s own requirement that awards be made on established, best-value criteria stated in the RFP. On that record the matrix does not read like the evaluation instrument the procurement contemplated.

What would settle this

Release the full procurement file. The contemporaneous evaluation. The names of the evaluators and the dates they scored. The board agenda, minutes and vote approving a multi-million-dollar lease. The best-value determination. These are public records documenting the spending of public money, and Arizona law already requires the ACA to keep them.

Next: the traffic score →   Read the source documents