The filings

ACA’s account, against ACA’s account

The Arizona Commerce Authority has now described this procurement in a brief opposing an injunction, a motion to dismiss, a resolution of its own Executive Committee, and a statement to the press. The descriptions do not agree with one another. This page sets them side by side.

One

Three dates that cannot all be true

ACA filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 12, 2026, the evening before the return hearing. The motion makes three statements about when this procurement was decided.

From ACA’s Motion to Dismiss, August 12, 2026
Date	What ACA states
June 1, 2026	“Pivot knew that it was not the winning proposer by no later than June 1, 2026.”
June 5, 2026	“Pivot then filed its Protest on June 5, 2026.”
June 12, 2026	“On June 12, ACA selected another proposer at a public meeting.”

The three statements are not consistent with one another.

If ACA selected another proposer on June 12, then the letter Pivot sent on June 5 was not a protest of that selection. There was nothing yet to protest.

If Pivot knew it had lost by June 1, then the selection had already been made, and the June 12 meeting was not the selection ACA describes.

ACA relies on all three propositions in the same filing. Its exhaustion defense requires the June 5 letter to be a protest of a decision, its Open Meeting Law defense requires the decision to have been made in public on June 12, and its timeliness argument requires Pivot to have known the outcome by June 1.

Two

The deadline ACA says extinguished the case

ACA’s position is that Pivot lost its claims by failing to file an administrative appeal within thirty days of the June 19 denial letter.

A.R.S. § 41-1092.03(A)(1) requires a notice of appealable agency action to identify the statute or rule on which the action is based. The June 19 letter identifies Section 7.3 of ACA’s Uniform Instructions to Offerors. That is an internal policy document. ACA’s policies are exempt from Arizona’s rulemaking requirements.

The same letter refused a stay, stating that “a stay of the process would not be in the best interests of the ACA.”

ACA then executed the lease on July 6, 2026. That was day seventeen of the thirty-day period it now says Pivot was required to use. Pivot had asked in writing, on June 5, that ACA not finalize the transaction pending review.

What an appeal could have achieved on July 20

The remedies ACA’s own Uniform Instructions contemplate are terminating the solicitation, re-soliciting, or awarding consistent with law. All of them assume a procurement that has not yet been performed. By the time the window closed, the lease was signed and the move was under way.

Pivot filed suit on July 15, 2026, inside the window on ACA’s own arithmetic.

Three

Was this a competitive procurement?

ACA has answered that question three times, to three audiences.

Three accounts of the same process
Audience	Date	The account
The Superior Court	August 7, 2026	ACA states that Pivot “competed for ACA’s office lease through a public procurement process” and that ACA created “a formal scoring matrix in compliance with its procurement policies and procedures.”
Its own Executive Committee	June 12, 2026	The resolution determines that, under Section VII.A.2 of ACA’s Procurement and Grants Policy, “the standard solicitation process for acquisition of goods and services would not be practicable or in the best interest of the ACA.” Section VII.A.2 governs procurements conducted without obtaining quotes, bids or proposals.
The press	July 22, 2026	A spokesperson describes a “competitive, comprehensive site evaluation process” that considered “proximity to the Capitol.” Proximity to the Capitol is not among the fifteen criteria in the scoring matrix.

Both readings carry consequences

If the procurement was competitive, ACA’s own Policy required public advertising, disclosed criteria, best-value award language, Board approval for procurements above $500,000, and contemporaneous documentation of the significant history of the procurement. None of that appears in the record ACA has produced.

If the procurement was not competitive, Section VII.A.2 assigns the impracticability determination for procurements above $500,000 to the Board of Directors rather than the Executive Committee, and requires documentation of why competition is impracticable and why the price is reasonable. No such Board determination or price documentation has been produced.

The resolution also authorizes staff to “engage in, continue, and finalize negotiations with the preferred property owner.” It names no landlord, no price, no term, no score, and no RFP.

Four

The protest Pivot was required to bring, and had no right to bring

ACA’s motion argues that Pivot’s claims are barred because Pivot did not appeal the denial of its protest.

The same motion states that Pivot “is not an ‘interested party’ in the RFP process” and lacks standing.

Section 7.1.1 of ACA’s Uniform Instructions grants the protest right to “[a]ny interested party.”

On ACA’s own account, Pivot had no right to the remedy ACA says Pivot was required to exhaust.

Five

The lease was noticed for a session closed to the public

ACA’s motion states that the June 12 meeting “was open both in person and virtually,” and notes that Pivot “chose not to attend.” ACA published the notice for that meeting on its own website. This is what it says.

Executive Committee Public Meeting Notice and Agenda, June 12, 2026
The notice states	What follows
“IV. Executive Session … B. ACA Lease Agreement”	The lease appears once on the agenda, under the Executive Session heading. There is no open-session item for the presentation, deliberation, approval or authorization of any lease.
“The Committee may vote to enter into Executive Session to discuss … Agenda Item B in accordance with A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3).”	Subsection (A)(3) is the exception for obtaining legal advice from the body’s attorney. ACA did not invoke § 38-431.03(A)(7), the exception for instructing representatives in real-property negotiations.
“Executive Sessions are not open to the public.”	ACA’s own notice states it. This is the sentence that sits against the motion’s representation that the meeting was “open both in person and virtually.”
“Members of the Committee are scheduled to appear telephonically.”	The notice offers telephonic appearance to Committee members. It offers nothing to the public.
“Access to this building is limited. Individuals planning to attend this meeting are asked to call 602-845-1200 in advance to arrange for access to the building.”	A member of the public who made that call, obtained access, and attended would have watched a roll call, an approval of February minutes, and the Committee vote to enter a session the notice says is closed.

A.R.S. § 38-431.02(H): A public body may discuss, consider or decide only matters listed on the agenda.
A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D): Legal action involving a final vote or decision shall not be taken at an executive session.

On the face of this notice, the presentation ACA’s declarant describes occurred either inside a session the notice says was closed, or in an open session on a matter the agenda never listed for open session.

The declarant states that the Committee was presented five property proposals, evaluations of each, and a staff scoring recommendation.

No minutes have been posted

A.R.S. § 38-431.01(C) and (E) require written minutes or a recording, including an accurate description of all legal actions taken and a record of how each member voted, available for public inspection within three working days. No minutes or recording of the June 12 meeting has been posted or produced. Every other Executive Committee meeting listed on ACA’s website has posted minutes.

Source. Executive Committee of the Arizona Commerce Authority Board of Directors, Public Meeting Notice and Agenda, June 12, 2026, published by ACA and filed by ACA as an exhibit to its Motion to Dismiss. Read it on azcommerce.com.

Six

The resolution contradicts itself on a single page

The resolution the Executive Committee adopted on June 12 recites, in its preamble, that ACA “has conducted a competitive and thorough property search, evaluating multiple sites and performing a detailed site comparison.”

Its first operative paragraph determines the opposite:

“Determines that, pursuant to Section VII.A.2 of the ACA’s Procurement and Grants Policy, the standard solicitation process for acquisition of goods and services would not be practicable or in the best interest of the ACA.” Executive Committee Resolution, June 12, 2026

Section VII.A.2 governs procurements conducted without obtaining quotes, bids or proposals. The same document recites a competitive search and then determines that competition was impracticable.

The resolution names no landlord. It authorizes staff to “engage in, continue, and finalize negotiations with the preferred property owner.” It states no price, no term, no score, and does not mention the RFP.

Seven

The rulebook ACA’s motion relies on says it does not apply to ACA

ACA’s Motion to Dismiss argues that Pivot was required to exhaust a protest-and-appeal process derived from the Arizona Procurement Code.

ACA attached its Uniform Instructions to Offerors to that motion as an exhibit. The last provision of that exhibit reads:

“Please note: The ACA is exempt from Title 41, Chapter 23 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (the Procurement Code).” ACA Uniform Instructions to Offerors, Section 7.8

The Uniform Instructions were adopted by ACA in 2011. ACA’s policies are exempt from Arizona’s administrative rulemaking requirements. The RFP sent to Pivot on December 1, 2025 does not mention the Uniform Instructions. Pivot was first referred to them in the June 19, 2026 denial letter.

Eight

Statements contradicted inside the same filing

ACA’s Motion to Dismiss, page 10, against its own record
What the motion states	What the record shows
Pivot “did not conduct any discovery, seek a stay, or even make a public records request before filing this action.”	Page 3 of the same motion states that the June 5 letter “request[ed] an order suspending the lease and preserving documents.” The June 19 denial letter refuses a stay under Section 7.3, and identifies the June 5 letter by its caption: “Demand for Disclosure, Board Review, and Preservation of Records.”
“Pivot filed a protest on June 5.”	The June 19 denial letter states that the communication “appears to be a protest.” ACA’s August 7 brief states the letter was “not labeled a Protest.” Section 7.1.2 of the Uniform Instructions requires a protest to include the request for proposal number. The RFP has no number.
Pivot “knew (or could have known) every fact alleged in its Complaint” before the appeal window closed.	The April 22 letter agreement, the May 6 Proposal to Lease, the May 12 collateral agreement, the scoring matrix and the June 12 board packet were in ACA’s possession and were first produced on August 7, 2026. That is three weeks after the window ACA relies on. The June 12 minutes remain unposted. The executed lease has not been produced.

And one claim the motion does not make

The motion moves against Counts I, II and III. It does not address Count IV, the public records claim, pleaded as a special action under A.R.S. § 39-121.02. The statute is not cited in the motion.

Nine

What the produced documents show about timing

ACA produced approximately 1,970 pages and native files on August 7, 2026. The following is drawn from that production and from ACA’s public records.

The transaction before the June 12 meeting
Date	Event
March 11, 2026	ACA models its lease-termination exposure using the economics ultimately executed at the Collier Center, including a $32.50 base rate and nine months of abatement.
March 12, 2026	ACA’s working comparison contains tabs for 201 East Washington and Renaissance Square only. Pivot is not in it. Four days later ACA tells Pivot it is “also considering another property.”
April 14, 2026	ACA tells Pivot the Executive Committee will decide “the following Monday.” No Executive Committee meeting was noticed that week, or at any time between February 26 and June 12.
April 22, 2026	A CBRE letter agreement states that ACA “has agreed on a proposal to lease” the Collier Center, refers to a Letter of Intent “executed in parallel,” and fixes an August 1 commencement deadline.
April 23 and 27, 2026	ACA’s information-technology and cabling vendors tour interim space on the ninth floor at 201 East Washington.
May 6, 2026	ACA’s Chief Operating Officer signs the Proposal to Lease: 44,734 rentable square feet, 93 months, $32.50 full service from month ten.
May 12, 2026	The same officer signs the related collateral agreement.
June 5, 2026	Pivot demands disclosure of the evaluation record, Board review, preservation of documents, and that ACA refrain from finalizing the lease pending review.
June 12, 2026	The Executive Committee adopts a resolution invoking the non-competitive provision and authorizing staff to “continue” and “finalize” negotiations with “the preferred property owner.”
July 6, 2026	ACA executes the lease. This is day seventeen of the thirty-day appeal period ACA now says Pivot was required to use.

ACA’s August 7 brief states that Pivot’s proposal was “no longer under consideration” in April 2026. No noticed meeting of the deciding body occurred in that period.

Ten

Who represented ACA

Accounts of ACA’s representation
The account	Source
ACA “is represented in this transaction exclusively by ACA’s Senior Real Estate Coordinator, Karyn MacVean,” who “shall serve the Tenant as its sole and exclusive agent for this transaction.”	Request for Proposal
Scott Baumgarten of CBRE “represented the ACA.”	Press statementSee source 1
CBRE prepared the letter agreement recording that ACA “has agreed on a proposal to lease” the Collier Center.	Letter agreementSee source 2
The same CBRE brokers appear as leasing brokers for the Collier Center landlord.	Transaction documents
Engagement letter, commission agreement, agency disclosure or dual-representation consent.	None produced

Leasing commissions are ordinarily paid by the landlord and priced into the rent. The competing One North Central proposal, at $33.00 per square foot full service, is priced in terms “based upon no outside brokerage commission to be paid.”

Sources.

1ACA statement to the Phoenix Business Journal, July 22, 2026.
2Letter agreement, April 22, 2026.

Eleven

A condition attached to the public lease

The April 22 letter agreement, restated April 24 and executed in May, contains the following provision.

“As a condition of entering into the LOI, ACA requires Landlord to enter into this LOA to provide Aurion Capital (‘Aurion’) the option to negotiate the specific terms of a lease in favor of an affiliated entity to be designated by Aurion.” Letter agreement, April 22, 2026

Aurion Capital manages NovaWave Capital. NovaWave is ACA’s venture-studio partner. ACA’s Proposal to Lease was conditioned on the NovaWave arrangement, and the NovaWave transaction was in turn made contingent on execution of ACA’s lease. ACA’s Chief Operating Officer signed both instruments in May 2026, before any noticed action by a public body.

The briefing memorandum provided to the Executive Committee on June 12 does not disclose the condition.

ACA’s scoring matrix assigns five points to a criterion titled “Space Consideration for Partners.” It awards the Collier Center all five. The term “partners” does not appear in the RFP.

ACA has been advised on this question before

In January 2024, in an unrelated investigation, the Arizona Attorney General advised ACA that generalized economic benefits and similar indirect benefits do not constitute cognizable consideration under the Gift Clause, and identified the State’s authority under A.R.S. § 35-212 to enjoin unlawful expenditures of public funds. The determination was addressed to ACA’s General Counsel.

On June 3, 2026, an ACA board member described the competition as follows: “Hard to compete with the value add – and brand – of Sumitomo.” USPO Phoenix, LLC, the landlord under the Collier Center lease, is identified in the transaction documents as an investment affiliated with Sumitomo Corporation of Americas.

What remains unproduced

Each of the following would resolve a question on this page.

The executed lease.
The Letter of Intent the April 22 agreement describes as “executed in parallel.”
Minutes or a recording of the June 12 meeting.
A Board resolution delegating authority to the Executive Committee.
Board approval for a procurement above $500,000, or a budget reflecting it.
Any version of the scoring matrix predating June 2026.
The engagement and commission agreements for the brokers on the transaction.

Pivot has requested these records. The litigation is pending. ACA denies wrongdoing.

Sources. Quotations on this page are taken from ACA’s Motion to Dismiss (filed August 12, 2026), its Response Opposing Plaintiff’s Application for Preliminary Injunction (filed August 7, 2026), the exhibits to those filings, ACA’s June 19, 2026 protest denial, the meeting notice posted on azcommerce.com, and documents ACA produced in this litigation on August 7, 2026. Court filings are public records in Pivot 200 EVB LLC v. Arizona Commerce Authority, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2026-029283. Documents produced in discovery are described but not reproduced here. The matters described are contested, the litigation is pending, and no court has ruled on them.