Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| Sunday, May 17, 08:04:09am | [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Atlanta Journal Constitution, GA - 18 Nov 2003 | |
|
Author: MARTA failed to play fair in bid, says loser |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Thursday, November 27, 04:17:49am MARTA failed to play fair in bid, says loser Suit seeks rebid, recompense By MILO IPPOLITO The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Efforts to replace MARTA's broken turnstiles and misused handicap gates are the subject of a lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court this week. Attorneys for Thales e-Transactions, a French company that was the losing bidder for a contract to upgrade the transit fare collection system, argued in court Monday that MARTA gave the winning bidder an unfair edge. Thales wants the $104 million contract voided and is seeking reimbursement for the $700,000 cost of preparing its bid. MARTA officials admitted to a deviation in standard contract procurement practices but denied that it gave the winning bidder, Cubic Transportation Systems, an unfair advantage. Testimony in the bench trial before Judge Joel Fryer is expected to conclude today. If Fryer rules in favor of Thales, he also must decide whether to require MARTA to rebid the project or simply reimburse Thales for the cost of preparing its proposal. The judge need not issue a ruling immediately. MARTA, expecting to win the legal dispute, already awarded the contract to Cubic last month. The replacement for MARTA's worn-out fare collection system is scheduled to be in place by 2006. Rebidding the contract could delay that another 12 to 18 months. The case hinges on Thales' contention that it was put at a disadvantage when MARTA sent a letter to Cubic without copying it to Thales. MARTA officials testified that copying such correspondence to all bidders is standard practice and that failing to do so in this instance was an oversight. In a December 2002 letter, Cubic asked permission to offer motorized swinging gates for handicap entrances to train stations. MARTA's current handicap gates, which are pushed open by hand, are frequently used by fare evaders. Instructions sent to the bidders specifically said that swinging gates would not be acceptable. MARTA's response to Cubic did not say whether the authority would accept the motorized swinging gates but that bidders were encouraged to seek creative solutions that met MARTA's needs. A similar letter was sent to Thales, but that letter did not include any reference to Cubic's query about the permissibility of motorized swinging gates. Thales has installed swinging gates at transit systems in Europe but did not propose them because of the prohibition against them in MARTA's bid documents, said Zaid Weis, director of business development for Thales. "The game got changed," argued attorney Mike Bowers, representing Thales. "We were never told." The written prohibition against swinging gates "meant nothing if a proposer could show that a swinging barrier was the best method to prohibit evasion of fares," Fryer commented from the bench. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |