Firm Cries Foul Over Radio Contract Process : Communications: Florida company alleges that government officials leaked information to its competitor, Motorola, putting it at a disadvantage. The law enforcement deal is worth $80 million.
A Florida-based communications firm, which is expected to lose an $80-million Orange County law enforcement radio contract, accused local government officials of leaking confidential documents to the competing company and compromising the selection process.
In a scathing six-page letter to the Board of Supervisors, the Harris Corp. alleged that the county had essentially rigged the highly technical and competitive contract process so that only giant Motorola Communications and Electronics Inc. could meet the standards.
The contract is one of the biggest in county history and is designed to improve police radio communications countywide during an emergency, such as Monday’s earthquake.
The board is scheduled to award the contract to Motorola on Tuesday. The decision could cost the county and local cities at least $6 million more than the Harris bid, which was initially accepted by the county. “To require the unique features of one manufacturer to be presented as mandatory requirements is tantamount to eliminating competition,” Harris Contract Manager R.C. Ford wrote in the letter to board Chairman Thomas F. Riley.
Riley could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but Supervisor Roger R. Stanton, who also received Harris’ letter, said he regarded the allegations as “serious” and has asked staffers to brief him on the company’s concerns.
“I’m not going to talk about this publicly until I get some answers,” Stanton said.
Stanton and other county officials declined to address details of the Harris allegations.
Motorola consultant Randy Smith likened the allegations to tactics employed in “a professional wrestling match” with Harris officials engaging in “eye-gouging” and “manufactured bull.”
But Ford contended that the county’s actions and those of a special team created to review the competing proposals “present a strong appearance of impropriety and questionable judgment.”
The selection process has been dogged by controversy for the past few months since a top county official said that Sheriff Brad Gates had urged him to consider Harris, which employed the sheriff’s political ally, San Juan Capistrano Councilman Gary L. Hausdorfer, as a consultant. Gates denied any efforts to steer the contract to Harris.
The proposed communications system, touted as the most sophisticated of its kind in the nation, would join all law enforcement, fire and public-works authorities in the county and 31 area cities on the same radio system. Cities are expected to pay for 70% of the system and the county 30%.
The project is a key provision in the county’s plan to upgrade its overall preparedness in case of disaster, such as the 6.6-magnitude Northridge earthquake that shook Southern California early Monday.
In October, the board voted to award the contract to Harris on the condition that the company satisfy seven technical concerns outlined by the review team of county and city officials.
But two months later, county officials issued a memo stating that Harris failed to meet those standards. At that time, the review team found that Harris’ proposal contained “risks” of “added costs, delayed implementation schedules, operational difficulties, and in extreme cases, physical safety of personnel.”
On Wednesday, county General Services Agency Director R.A. (Burt) Scott denied Harris’ allegations. Based on technical merit, he said, the counties and the cities were unanimous in their recommendation of Motorola.
“All I can say is that this thing has been worked on by a number of people, a number of cities and representatives from outside Orange County,” Scott said. “I think there is unanimous feeling that this process has been fair.”
Scott declined further comment, except to say that the county would once again review Harris’ final proposal. But the county’s recommendation for Motorola was not expected to change.
In the Harris letter, Ford alleged that 25 pages containing about 200 questions related to the Harris proposal were transmitted by county staffers to Motorola in March, 1992.
“These questions would provide Motorola with a clear understanding of the substance of the Harris proposal,” Ford wrote. “Although this was a very serious breach of confidentiality, the county maintained that this did not create an imbalance between the competitors.”
At that time, Harris officials recommended that the county begin negotiations with them to “remedy this impropriety,” Ford said. The county declined.
Motorola’s Smith acknowledged that some questions regarding the Harris proposal had been “mistakenly faxed” to Motorola by county staff. Smith said the questions were contained on one page and that county officials were immediately notified.
“I think this (Harris letter) is a last, desperate attempt to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat,” Smith said. “If their reasoning is that the county is biased in favor of Motorola, I don’t doubt it, but it’s not because of any dishonesty.”
Among other claims, Harris also alleged that a San Francisco-based consulting firm hired by the county to review the Motorola and Harris proposals was not nationally recognized as a specialist in analyses of public safety systems. The firm, C.S.I. Telecommunications, favored Motorola in the review.
C.S.I. officials could not be reached for comment.
Harris also alleged that the county review team was insistent on standards only Motorola could deliver.
“To say that the proposed system . . . is not acceptable because it lacks Motorola-unique features, ignores the positive references received from numerous Harris customers,” Ford stated.
Members of the review team have said that the process has been fair, but that Harris could not satisfy the system’s demands.
“I hoped that Harris could pull this off from the start,” said La Habra Police Chief and county review team member Steven Staveley in a Dec. 21, 1993, letter to county officials.
“This was my wish for several reasons, but the bottom line is they simply did not do it. They can complain about the process all they want, but it’s not the process that’s wanting, it’s their product.”
