Request for Criminal and Ethical Investigation

We request that your office initiate a criminal and ethics investigation into Mr. Cadle Collins, Procurement Officer for the City of Phoenix Aviation Department, for his misconduct during the Childcare Services at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport procurement (Solicitation #AVN RCS 24-001). The evidence demonstrates a deliberate pattern of unethical and unlawful behavior by Mr. Collins, who manipulated the process to steer the contract award to KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. through falsification of records, retaliatory tactics, and other willful violations.

His actions undermined public trust, squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and inflicted significant financial and emotional harm on two respected local businesswomen.

Enclosed are a summary of the violations, a timeline of key events, and supporting documentation (attached as exhibits). The record shows that Collins didn’t merely mishandle this procurement. He knowingly falsified the City’s official file and corrupted the process for improper purposes. Such conduct constitutes tampering with public records and abuse of public trust under Arizona law, warranting criminal investigation and prosecution. Equally troubling is

the City’s decision to repeatedly ignore credible allegations and permit the process to continue, thereby rendering its leadership complicit. Also concerning is the City’s decision to ignore credible allegations and permit the process to continue, thereby rendering its leadership complicit. Instead of addressing the misconduct, the City relied on subjective legal maneuvering—a feature of the procurement code that effectively allows the fox to guard the

henhouse—as the basis to disregard legitimate and substantiated complaints. In doing so, the City abandoned the safeguards intended to ensure fair competition and protect the public interest, leaving taxpayers to bear the cost of its failures.

*** What follows is extraordinarily detailed, complex, demanding, and duplicative (because each protest and appeal contains copies of the exhibits, some of which are also contained in other exhibits). This document contains multiple documents, overlapping layers, and frequent cross-referencing. We recognize the difficulty in understanding the complexities of this document, and we stand ready to help navigate those complexities. We also understand that there

may be some minor, unintentional errors with dates, etc.

● January 10, 2024: The City of Phoenix Aviation Dept. issued Solicitation AVN RCS 24-001 for a childcare center at the 44th Street Sky Train station (see Exhibit 1 for RCS). This project was funded by federal COVID-relief (ARPA) dollars to support airport workers’ childcare needs. Clute and Christensen were made aware of this solicitation through promotions by First Thing First. Three responsive proposals were received by the March 29, 2024 deadline: PHX Sky Care (Jody Clute’s local, woman-owned preschool) (see Exhibit 2 for the PHX Sky Care proposal), Bright

Beginnings (Theresa Christensen’s local, woman-owned preschool) (see Exhibit 3 for the Bright Beginnings proposal), and KinderCare (a national chain) (see Exhibit 4 for the KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. proposal). A fourth proposal, Montessori Room, was deemed non-responsive.

● May 28, 2024: The evaluation panel scored the proposals, ranking KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. first, PHX Sky Care second (within 4%), and Bright Beginnings third (see Exhibit 5 for panel scores and notes). The City then issued a Public Notice of Award Recommendation naming KinderCare as the awardee (see Exhibit 6 for award notice). Notably, panelist Patricia Kirkland had recently funneled a $3 million Head Start contract to KinderCare, a conflict of interest never disclosed or addressed (see Exhibit 7 for article about Head Start contract). This initial award set off a cascade of protests and exposed procedural irregularities, which revealed KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s blatant omissions of entire sections of critical RCS-mandated content (reference Exhibit 4 for details).

● June 4, 2024: PHX Sky Care (Clute) formally protested the City’s recommendation to award the contract to KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (see Exhibit 8 for PHX Sky Care protest of award), exposing a pattern of serious integrity breaches. KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s submission was fatally flawed: it failed to meet multiple RCS requirements, omitted mandatory content (reference pages 3 and 4 of the RCS in Exhibit 1, which reads “…all respondents must demonstrate creativity in proposing designs.” KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. didn’t submit a design), embedded false statements in a sworn affidavit, concealed material disclosures, and contained significant design and operational deficiencies. The most egregious violation centered on KinderCare’s Exhibit 12 Affidavit, which was intended as a space for bidders to disclose lawsuits and contract terminations. KinderCare falsely swore under oath that none existed (see Exhibit 9 for KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s Exhibit 12 Affidavit). In reality, PHX Sky Care documented nearly 400 lawsuits and numerous contract terminations (reference page 57 in Exhibit 8,). This was not a clerical oversight; it was a deliberate concealment of KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s extensive problematic history, which the City nonetheless accepted without scrutiny. The City’s disregard for KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s willful omission of material facts in a sworn affidavit constitutes unmistakable evidence of favoritism and a fundamentally predetermined procurement process.

***NOTE: KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s failure to include required elements of the RCS should have rendered them non-responsive, and their fabrications and omissions in the Exhibit 12 Affidavit should have rendered them non-responsible. In other words, KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. should have been disqualified for either failing to submit a complete RCS response or for intentionally misrepresenting the company’s troubling legal history.

● July 22, 2024: The City informed PHX Sky Care that it was withdrawing the previous award recommendation because Collins improperly submitted to the evaluation panel an affidavit document meant only for a responsiveness review, not because of any of the merits of the protest (see Exhibit 10 for City letter to PHX Sky Care announcing award recommendation withdrawal).

● July 26, 2024: After nearly two months, the City notified PHX Sky Care via email that its protest had been denied (see Exhibit 11 for City protest decision). At the end, the letter directs any questions to be emailed to Mr. Collins.

● July 29, 2024: The City released a public notice in which it required all three bidders—including PHX Sky Care and Bright Beginnings, whose affidavits were already complete—to refile Exhibit 12 forms (see Exhibit 12 for public notice of award recommendation withdrawal). PHX Sky Care and Bright Beginnings complied without issue, while KinderCare was effectively handed a second chance to repair its defective affidavit by inserting dozens of litigation disclosures it had originally concealed, and only after the protest deadline (see Exhibit 13 for PHX Sky Care’s revised affidavit; see Exhibit 14 for Bright Beginnings’ revised affidavit; see Exhibit 15 for KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s revised affidavit). This extraordinary mid-stream reset—granting a favored bidder the chance to fix sworn omissions—became the foundation for later claims that the City waived material defects and destroyed any pretense of equal treatment.

***NOTE: The City also declared that PHX Sky Care’s affidavit was inaccurate, claiming that it should have been signed as if it were a joint venture. That assertion collapses under the plain definitions published in the AVN RCS (reference page 44 of Exhibit 1 for details) and basic principles of business structures. In fact, it was solely KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. that submitted an incomplete, altered, and false affidavit. However, the City devised this justification in order to include PHX Sky Care’s affidavit as also incomplete to justify their plan for a “do-over.” Clute continued to ask for clarification on why her affidavit was inaccurate because it wasn’t making sense.

● Late July – August 1, 2024: With the first award rescinded, the bidders awaited instructions on the re-evaluation. Although procurement regulations required the City to notify bidders of their right to appeal when issuing a protest decision, PHX Sky Care received no such notification until much later (see 43-25(D) in Exhibit 16 for regulatory requirements regarding appeal rights). On August 1, 2024, Clute phoned Procurement Officer Collins after receiving no response to emailed questions about appeal procedure (see Exhibit 17 for PHX Sky Care’s emailed questions to City). Collins’ refusal to respond was a departure from his past practice. Audibly irritated, he stated that the City was likely to cancel the RCS. When Clute asked if she could contact KinderCare, Collins explicitly replied that such outreach “would not be a violation” of any City regulations. Relying on that assurance, Clute contacted both KinderCare and Bright Beginnings the same day. She spoke with Carissa Messick, KinderCare’s Strategic Partnerships Director, explaining her understanding—based on Collins’ comments—that the City intended to abandon the procurement, and she inquired about interest in a joint solution if the project were terminated. Clute’s outreach was a direct response to Collins’ statement about cancellation and her belief that such contact was permissible. At no point did she propose or engage in anything improper or collusive. Nonetheless, these routine calls would later become the manufactured pretext for Collins’ effort to disqualify PHX Sky Care.

***NOTE: Clute had a cordial business relationship with Christensen and was calling to update her about the upsetting conversation with Collins.

● Early August 2024: According to Collins, both Christensen and Messick called Collins to complain about Clute and to report the phone calls. In an email dated August 5, Collins involved the City’s Deputy Aviation Director, Michael Hughes, and an Assistant City Attorney, Gina Huerta, in discussions about PHX Sky Care (see Exhibit 18 for email from Collins to Hughes and Huerta). On or around August 2, 2024, Collins initiated a phone call with Bright Beginnings’ owner, Theresa Christensen, under the guise of following up on the situation. During this call, Collins manipulated the conversation to cast Clute in a negative light. According to Christensen’s later sworn account, Collins himself made several unsolicited derogatory remarks about Clute (see pages 4 and 5 of Exhibit 19 for Christensen’s account of the phone call in the appeal of decision). Collins told Christensen that the Aviation Department “didn’t want to work with PHX Sky Care… regardless of the quality of their proposal,” and strongly implied that “the City had already decided to disqualify PHX Sky Care” and that “KinderCare was the preferred vendor.” Collins even warned Christensen that the City has a “long memory,” implying in the context of the conversation, that he and the City would remember how she conducted herself in this bid process and that her current actions would impact her future opportunities with the City (reference page 4 in Exhibit 19 for details). The subtext was clearly a quid pro quo: if Bright Beginnings cooperated in helping eliminate PHX Sky Care, then the Bright Beginnings would be prioritized and favored in future procurements (even though Bright Beginnings’ score was so low that the company lacked standing to protest/appeal according to the City) (see Exhibit 20 for Final Bright Beginnings appeal report). This conversation was later cited as evidence of witness tampering as Collins was effectively coaxing a potential witness (another bidder) to provide testimony against PHX Sky Care, using implied professional reward and/or punishment (see Exhibit 21 for PHX Sky Care protest of disqualification).

● August 5, 2024: Collins wrote an internal email to Assistant City Attorney Huerta and Deputy Aviation Director Hughes to document purported complaints from KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. and Bright Beginnings against PHX Sky Care (reference page 1 in Exhibit 18 for details). In this email, Collins claimed that on August 2 he received separate, unsolicited phone calls from Messick and Christensen. Each one conveniently mirrors the other. He alleged that both women 1) reported Clute’s outreach as “unethical and unprofessional,” 2) said that they would never partner with PHX Sky Care, and 3) asked Collins to “document” their concerns. According to Collins’ email, both competitors called him on the same day and relayed identical stories, casting Clute as unscrupulous. By attributing indistinguishable details to both Messick and Christensen, he revealed the claim as contrived. In reality, as Christensen later documented at the bequest of Collins, she had never accused Clute of any misconduct (reference pages 3 and 4 in Exhibit 19 for details). To the contrary, as she later affirmed in her sworn statement, Christensen was, among other things, disturbed by Collins’ negative comments about Clute during their call. Collins’ August 5 email was, therefore, not a miscommunication but a knowingly false entry placed into the City’s official records, constituting tampering with public records under Arizona law. That falsified entry wasn’t incidental; it became the foundation for subsequent official actions, specifically PHX Sky Care’s disqualification, which also served to publicly defame Clute. Accordingly, the August 5 email was the principal element of the pretext by which the contract was steered to KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.

● August 9, 2024: Without notifying PHX Sky Care, Collins contacted both Messick and Christensen by email, directing them to submit written statements recounting their August phone conversations with Clute (see Exhibit 22 for emails from Collins to Messick and Christensen).

● August 14 & 26, 2024: KinderCare’s representative, Messick, submitted her written statement on August 14, a mere couple sentences regarding a near 15-minute phone call, and Bright Beginnings’ Christensen submitted hers on August 26 (see Exhibit 23 for letters from Messick and Christensen to City), which wholly contradicted Collins’ August 5 summary (reference page 1 in Exhibit 18 for details of Collins’ summary). Christensen’s written response doesn’t accuse Clute of bad behavior, and Christensen would later repudiate the City’s use of her statement, saying that it was “manipulated to align with Mr. Collins’ fabricated story” (reference page 4 in Exhibit 19 for details of Christensen’s account). At the time, PHX Sky Care was unaware that Collins had requested these statements.

● August 26, 2024: Almost a month later, Collins sends PHX Sky Care a letter calling for Clute to provide a written account of her communications with KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. and Bright Beginnings (see Exhibit 24 for request letter from Collins to Clute). In this letter, Collins doesn’t disclose that the City is investigating PHX Sky Care for wrongdoing or that complaints have been made against her. The letter also offers no hint that PHX Sky Care is on the verge of disqualification. Clute is essentially asked to document her August calls without knowing the context.

● August 30, 2024: PHX Sky Care, through legal counsel, submitted a written response to Collins’ inquiry (see Exhibit 25 for PHX Sky Care response to request letter). Clute’s response provided a general recollection, affirming that she never engaged in any discussion that was unethical or collusive and that her sole purpose was to seek input on a contingency plan should the City cancel the RCS. Counsel’s response also expressly requested additional information, which the City ignored. Nor did the City seek clarification or elaboration from any proposer after receiving these statements, pose follow-up questions, or convene a hearing informal or otherwise. This calculated silence allowed Collins’ false narrative to stand unchallenged. At a minimum, the City was obligated to confront the glaring inconsistency between Bright Beginnings’ account of its conversation with Clute’s and Collins’ versions. Similarly, KinderCare’s account should have been subjected to rigorous scrutiny, given its obvious motive as a multi-billion-dollar, publicly traded corporation whose prestigious award had been rescinded due to the actions of a small local company.

***NOTE: The City’s refusal to convene a prompt hearing caused an entirely avoidable delay of nearly a year on the new facility and wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for all parties involved. Even more disheartening, two local businesswomen were forced to incur the bulk of these costs simply to defend themselves. The delay also drove up construction expenses (as evidenced by the City’s own counsel during Clute’s motion to stay the lease in the special action motion), but, most importantly, it also deprived Sky Harbor families of access to much-needed childcare services in a more timely manner.

● October 15, 2024: Several months later, the City disqualified PHX Sky Care, citing alleged collusion under Affidavit Avowal #9 (see Exhibit 26 for Notice of Non-Responsive and Non-Responsible from City to PHX Sky Care; see Exhibit 27 for Affidavit Avowal #9 in #AVN RCS 24-001). Collins relied on solicited statements from Messick and Christensen—misrepresented as independent complaints—to justify the decision. PHX Sky Care was given no chance to respond. The disqualification functioned as retaliation, excluding PHX Sky Care and protecting the City’s favored bidder, KinderCare.

● October 22, 2024: PHX Sky Care filed its protest of disqualification (see Exhibit 28 for PHX Sky Care protest of disqualification), emphasizing the statistical implausibility of two competitors independently submitting carbon-copy complaints on the same day. The protest pointed out that the City’s evidence relied on unverified statements coordinated by Collins and that the disqualification was based on knowingly false allegations. Clute argued that this violated the principles of fairness, equal treatment, and integrity required in public procurement.

● November 25, 2024: The City denied PHX Sky Care’s disqualification protest (see Exhibit 29 for City reply to PHX Sky Care protest of disqualification). In a written decision, the City doubled down on Collins’ narrative. The decision dismissed PHX Sky Care’s concerns about the phony complaints and stated that the City saw nothing wrong with two bidders allegedly calling in complaints that were worded nearly identically. In fact, the City ignored the glaring improbability of the scenario Collins presented. Collins himself admitted that he never asked Messick or Christensen for any detail beyond their brief statements, but the City accepted Collins’ accusations at face value. The denial also failed to address the obvious motive issues: as KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s representative, Messick had every incentive to damage PHX Sky Care, the local rival whose protest had cost KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. the first award. In siding with Collins, the City effectively ratified the use of false evidence in a procurement decision, a point that would become central in later legal challenges.

● December 4, 2024: PHX Sky Care submitted a formal appeal of the disqualification decision to the City Manager (see Exhibit 30 for PHX Sky Care appeal of disqualification). Clute argued that the City’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, lacked substantial evidence, and were tainted by bias. She argued that the City changed the rules mid-process by introducing new “collusion” criteria via the updated affidavit, purely to favor KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc., and then the City wielded those rules to eliminate PHX Sky Care on spurious grounds. This appeal is PHX Sky Care’s last administrative remedy.

● January 7, 2025: The City Manager, Jeffrey Barton, issued the appeal report, which upheld PHX Sky Care’s disqualification (see Exhibit 31 for the City’s appeal report to PHX Sky Care). This January 7, 2025 decision was the City’s final word on PHX Sky Care’s status. The City Manager’s appeal decision parroted Collins’ justifications and stated that “prior to submission of updated Affidavits, [Collins] received separate phone calls from KinderCare and Bright Beginnings… describing the phone calls as unprofessional and unethical,” and that, therefore, PHX Sky Care violated its no-collusion avowal. It concluded that PHX Sky Care was properly deemed non-responsive/non-responsible and confirmed that PHX Sky Care’s proposal wouldn’t be considered further. PHX Sky Care had exhausted the City’s administrative process, and the next step was to seek relief in Superior Court.

● January 8, 2025: With PHX Sky Care disqualified, the City convened a new evaluation panel to rescore the remaining proposals. This second panel evaluated only KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. and Bright Beginnings, even though there was a pending special action. The second panel’s consensus scoring, completed on January 9, again ranked KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. as the highest-scoring proposer (see Exhibit 32 for the second panel’s consensus score). Bright Beginnings’ score apparently fell below the “competitive range” threshold (750 points), effectively indicating that Bright Beginnings had no right to appeal the panel’s decision. The City didn’t inform Bright Beginnings of its competitive-range exclusion at that time. Bright Beginnings only learned that it was below the threshold after it submitted its initial protest on January 27, 2025, when it obtained the panel’s score sheets via a public records request (see first paragraph on page 3 of Exhibit 33 for Bright Beginnings rebuttal letter).

● January 15, 2025: The City issued a Second Public Notice of Award Recommendation, naming KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. as the recommended awardee (see Exhibit 34 for second award recommendation letter). In making this new award recommendation, the City didn’t solicit new proposals or re-open the RCS to the wider market. It simply plugged in the updated affidavits and reduced the competitor pool in the second evaluation round, and it came to the same result as the first panel’s decision. Despite open appeals, allegations of improprieties, and PHX Sky Care’s submission of a proposal that fully met—and in several respects exceeded—the City’s stated requirements, PHX Sky Care was improperly excluded from scoring by the new panel. According to later allegations, the City had decided that KinderCare was the preferred vendor from the outset and would receive the award, regardless of proposal quality (reference page 4 in Exhibit 19 for details).

● January 20, 2025: Christensen contacted Clute’s counsel, Josh Grabel, and reported that Collins fabricated the contents of her entire conversation. She revealed that Collins had made derogatory remarks and had also attempted to incite her to support his account during this process, stating that Collins told her—among other things—that Aviation had “a long memory.”

● January 27, 2025: Bright Beginnings, through counsel, filed a protest against the second award recommendation (see Exhibit 35 for Bright Beginnings protest of second award recommendation), challenging both the initial May 2024 award, which Bright Beginnings hadn’t protested at the time, and the new January 2025 award to KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. In the protest, Christensen argued that the City’s process was unfair and violated the solicitation terms. Key points in Bright Beginnings’ protest included the fact that the City failed to adhere to RCS rules by allowing KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. to update its submission post-deadline, giving KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. an undue advantage; that the City hadn’t afforded equal treatment to all bidders since Bright Beginnings wasn’t given the same opportunities or consideration; and that KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc,’s proposal had numerous responsiveness defects that should have disqualified it. Bright Beginnings echoed many of PHX Sky Care’s concerns: that KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. was allowed to cure fatal proposal defects and that the City bent the rules in KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc 's favor. Bright Beginnings’ protest also sheds new light on Collins’ August 2024 machinations. Christensen now publicly contradicted Collins’ story by stating that she never initiated any complaint about PHX Sky Care and that Collins “falsely claimed” that she had accused Clute of unethical conduct when, as Christensen claimed, “I made no such statement.” She clarified that Collins called her and that he was the one badgering her to confirm his narrative. This is significant because it was the first time an insider (i.e., another bidder) formally went on record to expose Collins’ misrepresentations. Christensen’s protest validated PHX Sky Care’s claims that the disqualification was predicated on false information and manipulation.

● February 13, 2025: PHX Sky Care filed a special action complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court against the City of Phoenix and the City Manager, seeking an injunction to block the award of the airport childcare contract to KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. (see Exhibit 36 for PHX Sky Care special action complaint). The lawsuit alleged that the City had rigged the procurement by fabricating ethics complaints, wrongfully disqualifying PHX Sky Care based on knowingly false allegations, ignoring KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s undisclosed litigation history, and violating Arizona procurement regulations. PHX Sky Care argued that the disqualification was retaliatory, orchestrated by Collins to punish PHX Sky Care for filing an earlier protest, and that the entire process was manipulated to guarantee KinderCare’s Learning Companies, Inc’s selection. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief to void the award and compel the City to conduct a lawful, unbiased procurement.

● February 25, 2025: The City issued its decision denying Bright Beginnings’ protest (see Exhibit 37 for the City’s protest decision). In its letter, the City rejected Bright Beginnings’ arguments, asserting that all bidders were treated equally, that each had an opportunity to update affidavits, and that the second evaluation panel began with a “clean slate.” The City further contended that Bright Beginnings waived any objection by failing to challenge the process until after receiving an unfavorable result. On responsiveness issues, the City invoked its discretion to waive “minor irregularities,” deeming KinderCare’s omissions and affidavit defects “non-material.” The denial rests on the City’s continued position that no unfair advantage was created by the mid-stream reset, an assertion that Bright Beginnings strongly disputes. Finally, the decision reiterated that any issues not raised in the original protest, including evidence of Collins’ misconduct such as the Collins-Christensen call, were procedurally barred from consideration under City Code. As a result, critical allegations of falsification and witness tampering were sidelined on technical grounds rather than addressed on their merits.

● March 4, 2025: Bright Beginnings appealed the protest denial and elevated the matter to the City Manager’s Office (see Exhibit 38 for Bright Beginnings appeal of the City’s protest reply). In this appeal, submitted by counsel for Bright Beginnings, Christensen presented a comprehensive record, including emails and sworn declarations, that demonstrated that the City’s procurement process was compromised. As part of the record, Christensen provided a sworn declaration (see Exhibit 39 for Christensen’s sworn declaration), attesting that Collins had pressured her and subsequently misrepresented her statements in August 2024. She unequivocally denied the quotes attributed to her in the disqualification notice. Despite these detailed allegations, the City failed to address them in its determination.

● April 28, 2025: The City Manager appointed an independent Hearing Officer, Allen H. Quist, to review Bright Beginnings’ appeal (see Exhibit 40 for Quist’s letter to Bright Beginnings). Quist was tasked with providing a recommendation on Bright Beginnings’ appeal of the protest denial. He was given access to the entire administrative record, over 1,000 pages of documents, including the protest filings, responses, and key correspondences. This record included items like the August 9, 2024 letter from Collins to Christensen, the August 5, 2024 internal email,

and Christensen’s March 4, 2025 appeal declaration, which exposed the inner workings of the case. Quist’s mandate, however, was limited: per City Code, he could only consider issues that were raised in the original protest (January 27) by Bright Beginnings, not allegations that had surfaced after the original protest. This means that many of the broader misconduct claims (e.g., Collins’ witness tampering) fell outside his legal review scope.

● May 12, 2025: After initial review, Hearing Officer Quist requested and received supplemental documentation from both the City and Bright Beginnings. Both sides submitted additional evidence. Bright Beginnings pointed out Collins’ actions in a May 12 letter to Quist, in which Bright Beginnings raised new allegations (e.g., one evaluator had failed to timely sign a confidentiality oath, and Collins may have violated procedures during the re-evaluation) (see Exhibit 41 for Bright Beginnings response to Quist’s request). However, Quist noted that issues that weren’t raised in the original protest (January 27) couldn’t be introduced. As such, he confined his analysis to the core protest claims about unequal treatment and KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s proposal defects, rather than the allegations of fraud and falsification, which he deemed outside his purview.

● May 20, 2025: Hearing Officer Quist issued his written recommendation on Bright Beginnings’ appeal, advising that Bright Beginnings’ appeal be denied in full and finding that there was “no basis to disturb” the award to KinderCare (see Exhibit 42 for Quist’s reply to the Bright Beginnings appeal). In his analysis, Quist agreed with the City on key points: he found that Bright Beginnings had waived any objection to the affidavit update process by not protesting back in 2024, and he noted that all bidders (including Bright Beginnings) had the same opportunity to update their

affidavits. Quist’s recommendation stated that he had found no evidence of any dishonest conduct that affected the outcome, but Quist hadn’t held an evidentiary hearing or interviewed witnesses. His review was on the written record, but allegations about Collins’ fabrication and witness tampering, which weren’t formally part of Bright Beginnings’ original protest, weren’t fully explored in Quist’s recommendation. Quist’s report assured the City Manager that the solicitation was handled properly and that KinderCare’s win should stand.

● May 21, 2025: Phoenix City Manager Jeff Barton issued the final appeal decision, accepting the hearing officer’s recommendation and formally dismissing Bright Beginnings’ appeal (see Exhibit 43 for the City’s final appeal decision). The decision, which was sent to Christensen, constituted the City’s final administrative action. It upheld the protest denial and made the award to KinderCare official, pending Council approval. Barton echoed Quist’s reasoning that the review scope was limited and that no unfair advantage was created. With this ruling, Bright Beginnings exhausted its administrative remedies, as had PHX Sky Care before it. Both local firms were now shut out through all internal channels, while the City proceeded to finalize KinderCare’s contract despite unresolved allegations of procurement misconduct.

● February 13, 2025: PHX Sky Care filed a special action against the City, alleging that the airport childcare contract was subverted through fabricated complaints, wrongful disqualification, and violations of procurement law, fair procedure, equitable treatment, and procedural safeguards.

● March, 2025: Clute, through counsel, filed a Notice of Claim with the City (see Exhibit 44 for Clute’s notice of claim), claiming defamation. The City ignored the NOC.

● June 4, 2025: The Phoenix City Council convened to discuss the airport childcare center. The meeting revealed the tension between the City’s push for the project and KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s troubled record. Public testimony referenced dozens of incidents, including child abuse by staff, children left unattended, a toddler

ingesting drugs, and even a wrongful death case. Four witnesses addressed the Council: Clute, who described how a false narrative had been constructed about her; Lynette Bole, who recounted KinderCare’s responsibility in her stepson’s death; Bob Kersting, who testified that he had witnessed the Clute-Messick call and confirmed that Messick’s account was untruthful; and Christensen, who declared the process unfair. Clute’s attorney also summarized the pending legal challenges (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-GmjkbcXPk). Beyond safety concerns, KinderCare’s corporate parent faced financial red flags: in a 2021 SEC filing for a planned IPO, the company disclosed significant regulatory risks, pending litigation, and compliance issues (see Exhibit 45 for KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc.’s IPO filing to the SEC). Opponents argued that awarding KinderCare the contract in the face of these warnings placed children’s safety at risk. Nevertheless, the Council voted to move forward with the lease, and they merely requested that KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc. adjust its hours of operation to align with airport workers’ shifts, an alignment already provided in Clute’s proposal.

The following violations are established through Collins’ conduct, each tied to the events described above and the applicable laws, with supporting documents attached for review.

1. A.R.S. § 13-2407 prohibits knowingly making a false entry in, altering, or using a public record with intent to defraud or deceive (https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02407.htm).

Upon review of the attached exhibits, it should be clear that Mr. Collins knowingly falsified official procurement records by inserting statements he knew to be untrue. Such conduct constitutes tampering with a public record, a Class 6 felony under A.R.S. § 13-2407. Because these actions were deliberate and undertaken with intent to mislead, they warrant immediate referral to the Office of the Attorney General (or County Attorney) for criminal investigation and prosecution.

a. Make or alter a public record: Collins knowingly made false entries in written instruments that were public records. His August 5, 2024 email falsely summarized supposed complaints by Bright Beginnings. The October 15, 2024 Notice of Disqualification also contained fabricated information. These documents were placed into the City’s official procurement file, and they were an intentional misrepresentation of critical facts.

b. Present or use false public records: Collins created these false documents and also used them. He presented the August 5 email and the October 15 disqualification notice within the formal procurement process, and he intended that they be accepted as genuine and relied on by City decision-makers to exclude PHX Sky Care.

c. Record or file a false instrument in a government office: The August 5 internal email and the October 15 disqualification letter were both recorded in the official procurement file of the City of Phoenix Aviation Department. This file is a public record kept by the City under state law for the information of the government and the public. By intentionally placing false statements into this record, Collins violated section A.R.S. § 13-2407(A)(3).

d. Conceal or impair the availability of a public record: Collins’ misconduct also impaired the true and accurate public record of the procurement process. By inserting false information, he concealed the real context and deprived decision-makers, the public, and the courts of an honest record. Under section 13-2407(B), public records include all official books, papers, written instruments, or records created, issued, received, or kept by any government office or agency. The City’s procurement file and all related internal emails, notices, and evaluation documents clearly meet

this definition.

By intentionally making false entries, presenting and maintaining these documents as genuine public records, and misleading City officials into disqualifying PHX Sky Care to award a multimillion-dollar contract to KinderCare, Collins engaged in conduct that violates multiple parts of section 13-2407.

Evidence: Exhibit 26 (October 15, 2024 Notice of Disqualification) and Exhibit 18 (August 5, 2024 internal email) contain knowingly false statements created by Collins. By comparing the sworn declaration of Christensen (Exhibit 39) and other documents that contradict Collins’ version, it’s clear that Collins’ deliberate falsification was intended to deceive.

2. A.R.S. § 38-421(A) Stealing, Destroying, Altering or Secreting Public Record (https://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/00421.htm).

Procurement Officer Cadle Collins knowingly created and used false documents in an official capacity with intent to deceive. The August 5, 2024 email (Exhibit 18) and the October 15, 2024 disqualification notice (Exhibit 26) are fabricated or falsified records entered into the City’s procurement file. Under Arizona law, it is a class 4 felony for a public officer to knowingly make a false entry in any public record or to present a document known to contain false information, with the intent that it be taken as a genuine record. Collins’ actions fit this definition precisely because he inserted false information into official City records (i.e., inventing bidder complaints that never occurred) to justify a predetermined outcome. Each such document (i.e., the email, the disqualification notice) constitutes a separate instance of tampering with a public record.

As a public officer entrusted with the custody of procurement records, Collins is subject to a higher standard under A.R.S. § 38-421(A). This statute targets any public officer who knowingly falsifies or alters a public record in their custody. As the Aviation procurement officer, Collins had control of the solicitation file and used his authority to place false information into that file, thereby altering the record of the solicitation’s outcome and rationale.

This breach of the public trust is at the heart of § 38-421(A). The law exists precisely to deter officials from abusing their record-keeping responsibilities to mislead or defraud. By fabricating a record that stated that Christensen had complained of PHX Sky Care’s ethics when, in fact, no such legitimate complaints were made, Collins violated this statute.

Evidence: Exhibit 26 (October 15, 2024 Disqualification Notice to PHX Sky Care) and Exhibit 18 (August 5, 2024 email by Collins) demonstrate the false statements used as official justification for PHX Sky Care’s removal. These documents, juxtaposed with Christensen’s declarations denying that she ever made such accusations, provide clear evidence of falsified official records. Collins’ knowledge and intent are evidenced by the chronology: he authored the

false claims himself and knew them to be untrue, but he propagated them as the City’s findings.

3. (A.R.S. § 13-2310) – https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02310.htm

Collins’ actions satisfy the elements of A.R.S. § 13-2310, which makes it a class 2 felony to, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtain any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or material omissions. The statute expressly states that it doesn’t require reliance by any person and that a scheme to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services falls squarely within its scope.

Collins carried out a scheme to defraud the City, the other bidders, and the public of the honest, lawful administration of a multi-million-dollar procurement process. Acting with intent to deceive, he made false representations and material omissions, and he inserted fabricated complaints into the official record to falsely portray Clute and PHX Sky Care as unscrupulous. These misrepresentations and omissions weren’t isolated; they formed a pattern of conduct

designed to steer the contract award to KinderCare, the vendor favored by Collins or his superiors.

The benefit obtained by these fraudulent means was the advancement and preservation of KinderCare Learning Companies, Inc’s. position as the recommended awardee of a lucrative airport childcare contract, valued well over the threshold that would elevate penalties under this statute if aggregated. Even though Collins didn’t personally pocket money, Arizona law doesn’t limit fraud to schemes involving direct personal enrichment. It covers any knowing effort to secure a benefit by deceit, including steering a contract award to a preferred company.

Each step (i.e., falsifying the August 5, 2024 email, issuing the October 15, 2024 disqualification notice based on fabricated grounds, and concealing KinderCare’s material affidavit omissions) was an act in furtherance of this scheme. Collins thereby deprived the City and its residents of the intangible right to honest services and denied PHX Sky Care and Bright Beginnings the chance to compete fairly. Under § 13-2310, it doesn’t matter that the victims may not have relied on these misrepresentations in the traditional sense. The offense focuses on Collins’ intent and use of

fraudulent means to obtain the benefit for KinderCare.

This conduct also violates the City of Phoenix’s ethics code and procurement rules, which require fair treatment of all offerors and forbid favoritism or misuse of public office. For example, while PHX Sky Care was wrongly accused of collusion, KinderCare failed to disclose multiple lawsuits, regulatory sanctions, and abandoned leases in its sworn affidavits. Collins overlooked or excused those omissions, which demonstrated the bias underlying his scheme.

Evidence: Exhibit 9 shows KinderCare’s incomplete affidavit and records of its undisclosed lawsuits and regulatory issues. Exhibit 39 includes testimony from Christensen, describing how Collins told her that the contract was already decided and pressuring her to support his narrative. Together with the fabricated procurement documents, this evidence illustrates a deliberate, fraudulent course of conduct that fits precisely within the definition of a “scheme or artifice to defraud” under A.R.S. § 13-2310.

4. Tampering with a Witness A.R.S. § 13-2804 (https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02804.htm)

Arizona law makes it a felony for any person to knowingly communicate, directly or indirectly, with a witness in any official proceeding—or with someone the person believes may be called as a witness—with the intent to cause that person to: (1) unlawfully withhold any testimony, (2) testify falsely, (3) absent themselves from an official proceeding to which they have been legally summoned, or (4) evade a summons or subpoena. This conduct constitutes tampering with a witness under A.R.S. § 13-2804(A), which is classified as a class 6 felony.

The record illustrates that Collins knowingly violated this statute during his phone call with Christensen on August 2, 2024. At that time, Collins knew that Christensen was both a competing bidder and a likely witness in the protest PHX Sky Care had filed with the City, a protest directly challenging the fairness and legality of the procurement process that Collins was managing. The protest process was an “official proceeding” under the plain meaning of A.R.S. § 13-2804 because it was a formal administrative adjudication governed by the City’s procurement code, which carries consequences for contractual rights and is subject to later judicial review.

During that August 2 call, Collins communicated with Christensen with the intent to improperly shape her account of events. He suggested that KinderCare was already preselected to receive the contract and that the Aviation Department “didn’t want to work with PHX Sky Care… regardless of the quality of their proposal.” He also warned her that the City had a “long memory,” implying that her future business opportunities could hinge on cooperating with his narrative. Collins also indicated that KinderCare was “the preferred vendor” and that aligning with the City would

position Bright Beginnings better for future solicitations. This was a thinly veiled inducement, designed to cause Christensen to provide statements consistent with Collins’ fabricated version of events and to discourage any truthful testimony that could contradict it.

Collins’ subsequent request for Christensen to prepare a written statement (emailed August 9, 2024, Exhibit 22) further demonstrates his intent. By pressuring her to memorialize a version of events that bolstered the City’s basis for disqualifying PHX Sky Care, Collins knowingly sought to influence a person he believed would be called as a witness, specifically to induce testimonythat supported the City’s official record, which he had already begun to shape with false claims of collusion. This is conduct that fits within both A.R.S. § 13-2804(A)(1), seeking to have her withhold or distort truthful testimony, and A.R.S. § 13-2804(A)(2), by pushing her to effectively testify falsely through her written account.

Although this testimony occurred within an administrative procurement protest, the City’s bid protest and appeal process qualifies as an “official proceeding” under the statute. It was a formal adjudication governed by established rules, and it involved the presentation of evidence and legal arguments and resulted in final agency decisions with binding legal effect, later subject to special action review in the Superior Court.

This statute doesn’t require a threat of physical harm. It encompasses any knowing communication that aims to unlawfully influence testimony. Collins’ use of economic incentives and warnings about future city procurements falls squarely within this statute. His suggestion that Bright Beginnings’ cooperation could secure favorable consideration in later contracts amounts to an improper inducement under Arizona law.

This conduct is a class 6 felony under this Arizona law, which was designed to protect the truth-finding process in any official forum (whether an administrative protest or a courtroom) and to ensure that no public official may corruptly manipulate witnesses to achieve an improper outcome.

Evidence: Exhibit 39 (Christensen’s sworn declaration) describes Collins’ statements on August 2, and it quotes his remarks about the City’s “long memory” and preference for KinderCare. These records show that Collins knowingly communicated with a person he believed would be called as a witness, intending to shape her account to fit a false narrative and thereby tamper with the integrity of testimony in an official proceeding, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2804.

Mr. Collins’ conduct has caused significant harm, not only to Clute but also to public trust, the integrity of city operations, and potentially the welfare of airport employees and families who would benefit from the childcare center. Specifically:

● Erosion of Trust: This matter raises broader concerns for vendors considering contracts with the City of Phoenix because it creates uncertainty about whether procurements are administered with impartiality. Such incidents risk diminishing confidence in the Aviation Department’s awards and in City contracting processes overall. To maintain public trust and vendor participation, it is essential that the City responds in a manner that reinforces the transparency and integrity of its procurement system. An independent review and further action, if warranted, would be an appropriate step toward restoring confidence.

● Financial and Operational Costs: As a direct result of Mr. Collins’s actions, the City has been drawn into protracted protests and litigation, incurring significant expenses in outside counsel fees, staff time, and court resources, as well as delays in project implementation. The childcare facility contract, which was intended to provide a critical amenity for airport employees and passengers, was stalled until only recently. PHX SkyCare was ultimately forced to abandon its special action against the City after incurring nearly $200,000 in legal fees and exhausting its resources. Had those claims prevailed, the City could have faced substantial liability or been compelled to restart the solicitation process altogether, leading to a further waste of taxpayer funds. These outcomes represent a misuse of City assets and resources, directly attributable to one individual’s misconduct.

● Detriment to Competing Vendors: PHX Sky Care, a local business, sustained both reputational and economic harm after being falsely accused and denied a fair and impartial opportunity to compete. Bright Beginnings, another bidder, was similarly disadvantaged by the absence of a level playing field, and its owner, Christensen, saw her reputation disparaged and diminished as City officials repeatedly dismissed her concerns by labeling her “disgruntled.” Such conduct sends a stark warning to honest businesses that participation in City procurements carries the risk of arbitrary disqualification or favoritism. The result is not only harm to individual vendors but also direct injury to the

competitive marketplace and to the City itself, which is deprived of securing the highest quality services at the best value.

● Breach of Public Duty: Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Collins betrayed the fundamental duty of a public servant to act in the public’s interest. By placing personal or political agendas above fairness and truth, he sabotaged the procurement he was entrusted to manage. If left unaddressed by law enforcement, such conduct sets a dangerous precedent that public officers can manipulate processes without consequence. It’s imperative to draw a clear line, to announce unambiguously that this behavior is both unethical and criminal.

The City repeatedly hid behind procurement technicalities to dodge the real issue: misconduct. The record is copious and clear: false statements were planted in the file, vendors were pressured through back-channel communications, and KinderCare was given special treatment, which constitutes corruption. Collins’ crimes deprived local businesses and the public of an honest, competitive process, no matter how the City tried to paper it over.

PHX Sky Care’s proposal met every single RCS requirement. KinderCare, by contrast, openly declared that it would deliver required content only after it won. Despite being owned by a Swiss-based international private equity firm with unlimited resources and personnel, KinderCare submitted boilerplate content and omitted almost the entire required design section of the RCS, but still it managed to collect most of the points in that category. Clute, by contrast, brought decades of construction experience and had just built and outfitted an 11,000-square-foot childcare center in Phoenix during COVID, on her own, while the City’s development system was largely shut down. She brought the proven expertise KinderCare could only claim on paper. But the City ignored this track record in favor of an international conglomerate with a history of mistreating employees and endangering children, whose SEC filings, and even its proposal, admit that its business model includes raising enrollment fees on established families every six months.

Aviation publicly proclaimed that local vendors would be prioritized, then it awarded the contract to a publicly traded corporation controlled by a Swiss-based private equity firm. At the Council hearing, KinderCare’s representative even bizarrely cited her Uber ride to the site as supposed proof of “public excitement,” claiming the Uber driver was so enthusiastic about airport childcare that she stopped mid-ride to look at the construction. Meanwhile, sworn

affidavits and falsified records tell the real story: a qualified local provider was pushed out, and a corporate giant was ushered in through favoritism and fraud.

These facts, taken together, demonstrate that this process was wholly fraudulent. The pattern is unmistakable: fabricated records, retaliatory disqualifications, and preferential treatment for a preselected corporate vendor. This was a deliberate subversion of a competitive bid designed to protect taxpayers and ensure fairness. Left unchecked, this behavior would signal to every local business that integrity and merit are irrelevant and that contracts can be manipulated to arrive at predetermined outcomes. Such conduct corrodes public trust and meets the very definition of

corruption under Arizona law.