Error Forces MTA Panel to Accept Higher Bid : Subway: Firm submitting lower figure checked the wrong box on its application. The $1-million difference angers mayor.

Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan posed what seemed to be a straightforward question Thursday: If two firms bidding for a multimillion-dollar contract submitted similar proposals, why was the MTA selecting the company bidding nearly $1 million more than the other?

The answer was anything but simple.

“The low bidder was turned down because it checked the wrong box?” asked an incredulous Riordan when he heard the answer. “Somebody ought to get a little common sense.”

The mayor, deferring to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s legal advisers, joined the rest of the Construction Committee nonetheless in recommending the awarding of a construction contract for a Hollywood subway station to Tutor-Saliba-Perini for about $69.9 million, almost $1 million more than the lowest bid. The committee’s recommendation is conditional on a review being conducted of the expected protest by the losing bidder.

The action offered a glimpse into the sometimes confusing spending decisions on the troubled subway project, the most expensive per mile in U.S. history. It also came amid new disclosures that the MTA needs to spend $200,000 to seal more than 800 water leaks in the subway.

In the latest contract controversy, Kajima-Ray Wilson had bid $68.9 million to build the subway station at Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue, but the MTA staff concluded that the joint venture fell short of meeting the requirement to hire 30% minority subcontractors.

Ironically, Tutor-Saliba had been the lowest bidder on the same contract last fall, but transit officials concluded that the bid was “non-responsive” because one of the minority subcontractors listed was not properly certified. The MTA board rejected all bids and ordered a new round of bidding.

Both firms proposed hiring the same minority-owned trucking company. But Tutor-Saliba received a higher grade from the MTA staff because it designated the trucking company as a subcontractor. Kajima--in what its attorney said was an error--checked the box designating the trucking company under the lower-rated category of broker.

“I’m a little confused,” said Hal Croyts, an alternate MTA board member, saying that it would seem that both bidders should receive equal credit if they are proposing to use the same subcontractor.

“Isn’t that a little silly?” Riordan also asked.

But Franklin E. White, MTA’s chief executive officer, said the agency’s hands are tied. “The difficulty here has to do with the technicality that the forms were filled out improperly,” he said.

MTA staff said that if prospective contractors were permitted to change bids after they are submitted, it would provide a competitive advantage to one bidder over another. The staff also said it was not clear that Kajima had made a mistake.

“We have to go with what the bid documents say,” said Mike Baca, MTA contracts director.

Bernard S. Kamine, an attorney for Kajima, said the firm would protest the contract award through administrative channels and probably the courts, if necessary. He contended that the MTA staff did not properly evaluate Kajima’s bid.

Nomi Castle, a lawyer for Tutor-Saliba, told transit officials: “Before anybody gets too sympathetic over the plight of Kajima, let me remind you that . . . the first time this project was bid, my client was the low bidder.” She noted that Tutor-Saliba’s new bid was nearly $1 million less than the earlier one.

*

Deep Background

* A collection of articles on the ongoing problems faced by the Metro Rail subway project can be found on the TimesLink on-line service.

Details on Times electronic services, B4