R2014-52 ACCEPTING PROPOSAL OF MV TRANSPORTATION, INC. FOR TRANSIT SYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Home Browse Search

Management Services. Mr. Parker was MV's candidate for the position of General Manager for the DCTA. • The City of Decatur opened proposals for its procurement on February 26, 2014. • The DCTA opened proposals for its procurement on March 17, 2014, some 19 days after the City of Decatur had closed its procurement. • The City of Decatur conducted telephone interviews with the two firms competing for the Transit Management contract on April 23, 2014, which Mr. Parker presumably participated in as the proposed candidate for MV. Furthermore, during a later conversation between Paul McChancy, Mass Transit Administrator, and John Woodford, the First Transit Region Vice President, our firm was advised that the strength of the MV manager candidate was a determining factor in the decision to award the contract to MV. • The DCTA staff committee charged with evaluating the RFP announced its decision in a public meeting on April 24, 2014, the day after MV represented Mr. Parker to be their GM candidate for Decatur. • There can be no doubt that MV proposed Mr. Parker in two proposals at the same time, one in Decatur and the other in Denton. What is troubling about the conduct of MV in these two proposals is that they represented to each customer that Mr. Parker was their candidate for GM and that, upon an award to MV, he would become the GM. Had MV been awarded both contracts they would have been unable to have Mr. Parker be in two places at once. Had MV correctly represented to each potential customer that Mr. Parker was also being proposed in another bid, and would be available only if the other customer chose a firm other than MV, the bid would have been conditional and by the aforementioned RFP rules deemed non-responsive. MV chose, however, to not accurately represent the conditional nature of their proposal by not disclosing that Mr. Parker was also in another bid at the same time. By doing so MV had submitted a conditional bid and then kept this fact from the City of Decatur in an intentional act to misrepresent to the City the basis of their bid. Aside from violating the provisions of the procurement, this was also a practice which brings into question the accuracy of the other representations made in their proposal. The City of Decatur can easily confirm these facts by communicating with the DCTA or by simply asking MV if Mr. Parker was in fact bid in the DCTA at the same time he was being proposed to the City of Decatur. When the City of Decatur confirms this, it must find MV's proposal non-responsive as it submitted a conditional bid. 2. The scoring of the proposals was not conducted in a fair and objective manner. • Section 10.6 describes the specific items to be provided regarding the GM's background. The first listed was education, the third was relevant experience. First Transit's candidate has both a Bachelors and a Masters degree, while MV's candidate has no college degree at all. For the last 12 years MV's candidate has