Judge Nullifies Contract Given to Anaheim Firm to Install San Diego’s Freeway Call Box System

Ruling that a county agency erred in awarding a contract for freeway emergency call boxes to a firm whose bid was more than $1 million higher than that of another company, a Superior Court judge Tuesday nullified the contract and told the agency to reconsider the bids.

In a decision that county officials warned could delay installation of the call boxes, Judge Richard Huffman ordered the county’s Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) to set aside a $9.6-million contract awarded last month to Anaheim-based Comarco Inc. and to award the project to the lowest responsible bidder.

Huffman’s ruling came in response to a petition filed by Cubic Corp., a San Diego-based firm that challenged Comarco’s award of the contract after Cubic’s own bid, which was about $1.1 million lower, was rejected by the county.

SAFE officials said after Tuesday’s hearing that they plan to appeal Huffman’s decision, noting that it is directly contrary to an Orange County Superior Court judge’s ruling in another virtually identical case also involving Cubic and Comarco.

1,000 to Be Installed

Under the San Diego contract, nearly 1,000 call boxes will be installed along the county’s 300-mile freeway system to make it easier for motorists to telephone for help in the event of automobile problems or other emergencies. The project is an outgrowth of the controversy that arose two years ago after one woman was murdered and another raped at gunpoint when their cars broke down on freeways.

The dispute at the heart of Tuesday’s hearing focused on whether SAFE was obliged to follow competitive-bid procedures in awarding the call box contract.

Pointing out that the county and local cities banded together to form SAFE, Cubic attorney Robert Steiner argued that the agency was subject to the same competitive-bidding requirements under which each of those individual governmental entities operates.

SAFE officials, however, contended that the agency was not subject to competitive-bidding procedures, arguing that the Legislature specifically chose not to impose such a requirement when it authorized the agency’s creation.

Siding with Cubic, Huffman ruled that SAFE must “operate under the same regulations . . . as its individual parts.”

“As far as I can determine, all of the county and city governments that make up (SAFE) would be subject to competitive bidding for the project,” Huffman said.

“Therefore, the composite of those governments also is subject to those regulations.”

That ruling contradicts an Orange County judge’s decision in a case that arose when Cubic challenged a call box contract that Orange County’s SAFE board awarded to Comarco. In that case--in which Cubic’s bid was about $1.2 million lower than Comarco’s--the judge ruled that the Orange County board was not subject to a state regulation requiring that government contracts must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

“That’s our legal system for you--a judge up here tosses it out and one down there upholds it,” Comarco spokesman Don Bailey said.

Granville Bowman, San Diego County’s director of public works and administrator of the SAFE program, said that Huffman’s ruling will be appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeal within the next month. However, the side that loses at that level will probably pursue the appeal before the state Supreme Court, raising the possibility of a long delay before the call boxes are installed.

“We’re kind of dead in the water until we get the legal issue resolved,” Bowman said.

Comarco’s Bailey concurred, saying, “I’m sure this will cause a delay in San Diego getting what it wants, and that’s call boxes on the freeways.”

When the contract was awarded to Comarco last month, company officials said that the firm planned to begin installation before this fall and that the countywide system would be operational within a year.

The yellow call boxes, which will be installed along the outside lanes of all local freeways, will contain a cellular unit--similar to automobile phones--with a receiver to put the caller in direct contact with the California Highway Patrol. CHP dispatchers will automatically find the source of the call and direct aid.

Special Vehicle Fee

Initially, the phones, to be funded through a special $1 fee on annual vehicle registrations for San Diego County cars, will be spaced about a mile apart, except on particularly busy freeway stretches, where they will be closer together, Bowman said.

Later, when more money is available, the distance between the boxes will be shortened to about a quarter-mile in most areas, he added.

In ordering SAFE not to proceed with the Comarco contract Tuesday, Huffman did not specifically order the agency to award the project to Cubic. Rather, he simply directed the board to “exercise its discretion and determine who the lowest responsible bidder is.”

SAFE officials picked Comarco, Bowman said, because they believed that Comarco “has more experience and a better track record” in regard to the cellular phone system envisioned for the San Diego project.

In the last two years, the Orange County firm has tested the phones in about 10 cities, including one project in Manhattan’s Central Park and another along the Golden State Freeway in Los Angeles.

“We wanted to leave the door open to get the most advanced system around,” Bowman said. “We also looked at not only the initial purchase price but also the maintenance costs over the 10-year life cycle.”

Over 10 years, the price gap between the Comarco and Cubic bids was about $500,000--slightly less than half the difference in acquisition costs, Bowman added.

Met the Requirements

SAFE officials said Cubic’s plan would have been inadequate for some remote locations. They also feared that the firm’s call boxes were not sufficiently resistant to vandals, Bowman said.

“Comarco met all the requirements and the others didn’t,” Bowman said. “Cubic said they could redesign the things we were concerned about, but we didn’t want to bet on the outcome. As far as we were concerned, Comarco was the lowest responsible bidder.”

Bowman conceded that Tuesday’s court ruling “definitely confuses the picture.”

“If we come back and say Comarco is the lowest responsible bidder . . . we might be right back where we are now,” Bowman said. “It’s all up to the lawyers now.”