Rare bidding tie favors minority firm
A contract bidding process for a maintenance and repair contract with the MARC commuter rail system produced an unusual tie that was resolved by giving the job to the minority-controlled firm.
According to the agenda for the July 6 Board of Public Works meeting, two firms tied for the low bid on the more than $5 million contact while another came within $80. The work consists of maintaining the grounds, fixing public address systems and making repairs to stations on the Penn, Camden and Brunswick lines.
M. Stancliff Construction Co. of Seabrook and Denver-Elek Inc. of Baltimore submitted identical bids of $5,076,200, according to the Maryland Transit Administration. Mercier's Inc. of Harmans offered to do the work for $5,076,280. Two other bidders were higher.
The contract has been awarded to Stancliff because it is a certified "disadvantaged business enterprise" -- a tie-breaker under state procurement regulations.
There's nothing obviously wrong about the award. It's just notable for how close it was. The winning bid came in under the MTA engineer's estimate of $5.4 million, so it looks as if the state got a decent price.
If there's anything more to this story, please contact Getting There at michael.dresser@baltsun.com.
Comments
Re "There's nothing obviously wrong about the award." Oh yeah? What if the rule was that, in the case of a tie, the award automatically went to the NON-minorityi-owned company: How does that sound?
Why do race or ethnicity need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's good to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color or national origin. But that means no preferences because of skin color or what country your ancestors came from either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it breeds corruption and otherwise costs the taxpayers money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and this model brief: http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1342 ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.
If there's a tie, in other words, then flip a coin: Don't engage in racial discrimination.
COMMENT: Let's just say there's nothing obvioisly illegal under Maryland law. If the gentleman wants to take the case to court, who knows who will win? Specifically, MDOT said the bidder with the greater percentage of minority participation wins the tiebreaker. With the winner, the total was 100 percent.
Posted by: Roger Clegg, Ctr for Equal Opportunity | June 24, 2011 1:42 PM