MTA Rules Revised After Possible Conflicts by Bidders

Transit officials are revamping their contract bidding requirements after discovering that all four firms vying for a new job may have had conflicts that barred them from doing the work.

The discovery followed yet another major contracting snafu last month, when officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority shelved a subway tunneling contract potentially worth $80 million because of possible conflicts of interest, leaked data and shredded documents.

In the most recent case, MTA officials said all four corporate teams competing for a $300,000 contract to conduct a community relations study included people who had worked for the MTA and are prohibited from soliciting business for a year after they leave.

Because of lax oversight and inadequate disclosure requirements, officials acknowledged that staff was unaware of the potential conflicts until just before the contract was scheduled for final board approval last month. Even then, MTA board members were not told of the problem until one member asked questions that prompted the board to table the vote.

“I don’t think this should have happened, absolutely not,” said MTA board member Vivien Bonzo. She has asked the MTA inspector general to investigate the case.

MTA staff is reviewing the agency’s contract requirements and expects to deliver a report to top officials by next week. The agency plans to require firms seeking business to disclose any staff members or consultants who previously worked for the MTA.

“What we’re trying to eliminate,” Bonzo said, “are those relations--perceived and real--that could lead to an advantage (for an applicant) by virtue of the familiarity between the individuals.”

The $300,000 community relations contract will fund an outreach study to help the MTA better communicate transportation information to residents who speak foreign languages.

But MTA officials now plan to rebid the job--the second time in recent weeks they have been forced to shelve a contract because of questions focusing on the so-called “revolving door” that ushers employees back and forth between the agency and the private sector.

The earlier contract promised a far larger payout--a ceiling of up to $80 million for management of North Hollywood subway construction--but it, too, has been held up by contract irregularities.

An internal investigation found that MTA administrators had misled their superiors about possible conflicts, shredded critical evaluation reports and allowed leaks of confidential data to bidders. Two top MTA contract administrators criticized by the investigation had previously worked for Jacobs Engineering, the Pasadena firm that the staff recommended for the job.

Although MTA officials say no one has kept count of the consultants, engineers and administrators shuttling between jobs at the MTA and its contractors, the practice has become increasingly common.

The trend has prompted occasional calls for reform to stop the agency’s “revolving door,” which some fear could compromise the fair-handedness of the agency in its dealings with contractors. But never before, officials say, do they remember a time when all of the bidders for a job ran into questions because members of their team had worked for the agency.

MTA procurement director Paul Como said all four teams competing for the community relations contract included ex-MTA staffers, who may have been ineligible to work on the job under the agency’s ethics policy. He did not name all the ex-staffers and said their official departure dates from the agency are not clear in all cases.

The El Monte public affairs firm of Lang, Murakawa & Wong won the staff recommendation for the contract earlier this year. But on the eve of its approval last month, MTA staff members learned that the firm appears to be prohibited from doing the work because a partner, Trisha Murakawa, worked as an MTA public affairs specialist until July, Como said.

The agency’s chief executive officer, Franklin E. White, pulled the item from consideration at the board’s March 22 meeting after questioning from board members.

White was unavailable for comment Wednesday. Murakawa suggested Wednesday that miscommunication fueled the problem. She said she contacted the MTA’s ethics office before the contract was advertised to determine whether she was eligible. “They said go ahead and (apply) and it shouldn’t be a problem,” she said.

She asserted that her case should not be compared with the previously publicized problems in the North Hollywood subway contract award.

“It’s not an issue like the Jacobs case at all, in the sense that there was a huge conflict of interest or the appearance of collusion or whatever. It’s nothing like that,” she said.

But Como, the procurement director, said he views any violation of the agency’s ethics policy as a serious matter.

“From my perspective as a contracting officer,” he said, “we always try to have as balanced a playing field as we possibly can (in awarding a contract), and someone who is recently separated from the MTA would have information and access to data that other applicants wouldn’t have, so that could be an unfair advantage.”

The three other firms competing for the community relations contract are CDS Information Services, Judith Norman Transportation Consultants and Toltec Partners.

Norman said a subcontractor on her team left an MTA administrative job in August, but she argued that it is “ridiculous” for an employee not playing a lead role on the job to be covered by the revolving door policy. “In my mind, there is no conflict,” she said.

Officials at CDS said they were unaware of any ex-MTA employees on their team, and Toltec officials could not be reached for comment.

Como said the episode has pointed up shortcomings in the MTA’s contracting process.

“As we look back . . . we probably should have been a little more aware, a little more vigilant about the fact that these types of problems come up,” Como said.