The Capital Area Transit System board will consider a recommendation at its monthly meeting later today to award a contract for providing curb-to-curb services to disabled riders to MV Transportation, the Texas-based company that had a consulting contract with CATS from 2013-2015 and is the former employer of CATS CEO Bill Deville.
In December, the CATS finance and executive committee recommended awarding the paratransit contract to MV, which bid $6.9 million for the three-year deal—nearly $1 million less than competing bidder, Baton Rouge-based Reliant On Call.
But Reliant, which has held the contract since 2004 and generally gotten high marks for on-time performance and lack of complaints, is crying foul.
“MV was recently the consultant to CATS and now will be a vendor to CATS,” Reliant CEO Rob Miller says. “Seems like good ole Louisiana politics, Texas style.”
CATS contracted with MV in 2013 to help implement several route changes and expansions. Deville, a former New Orleans transit executive, came to CATS as a consultant with MV. After the contract ended, he stayed on with the agency, eventually becoming CEO.
CATS board chairman Jim Brandt says there is nothing untoward about the committee’s recommendation of MV, adding Deville had “absolutely nothing whatsoever” to do with the selection, which is not final until the board votes.
The committee recommendation was made after a months-long procurement process conducted by CATS staff, he says. Members of the staff committee also unanimously recommended awarding the contract to MV based on scoring in several categories.
According to a memo from CATS’ procurement director, who oversaw the RFP process, MV outscored Reliant in four categories: understanding the project, technical capacity, references/financial strength, and cost proposal. Reliant scored higher on its qualifications/experience.
“The recommendation was based on a very methodical review,” Brandt says. “The criteria was well stated, and based on a very thorough evaluation the committee felt MV was the most responsive. It wasn’t only on price, though there was almost a $1 million difference.”
Miller says he believes MV intentionally low-balled the contract and will find other ways to make up the difference later, noting that it won the 2013 consulting contract by bidding $1.5 million and ultimately was paid nearly $2.5 million by CATS.
“Why would CATS get into another contract with a company with that track record?” asks Miller, who, along with two partner firms, bid unsuccessfully against MV for that contract in 2013.
Brandt says MV was paid more by CATS than it originally bid in 2013 because the scope of its work was increased during the life of the contract.
It is unclear why CATS did not rebid the paratransit contract until now. Best practices dictate a public agency should rebid a contract every few years, Brandt says.
“I think the decision to seek other options was long overdue,” he says.
The CATS board will meet at 4:30 p.m. at the BREC Administration Building, 6201 Florida Blvd.
—Stephanie Riegel
