Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget committee approves revised prevailing‑wage language for MTA security contracts
Summary
The committee approved an ordinance directing the Municipal Transportation Agency to include prevailing‑wage and transitional employment provisions in future security contracts after amending the draft to avoid privileging the incumbent contractor; the analyst estimated about $218,004.46 in added annual costs under the draft language.
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Budget and Finance Committee on a voice vote approved an ordinance authorizing the Municipal Transportation Agency to require prevailing wages and transitional‑employment and retention protections in future security‑services contracts, subject to an amendment to the draft definition of “prevailing wages.”
Chris Gaborkiewicz, the MTA’s director of security investigations and enforcement, told the committee the agency must protect a transit system with “billions of dollars in assets” and millions of annual riders and that the RFP process lets the MTA evaluate the best security strategies and providers. He said the agency is seeking both efficient procurement and fair treatment for workers who currently provide security services.
Budget and legislative analyst Mr. Rose reported that, based on comparative bids, the ordinance as drafted would increase the MTA’s annual costs by $218,004.46 and by $1,310,006.79 over a six‑year contract term. Rose said the draft definition of prevailing wages — which tied the standard to the incumbent contractor’s pay — could reduce the number of bidders and “significantly advantage the existing contractor, Cypress Security Services,” and he recommended deleting the language that set prevailing wages equal to the incumbent’s compensation.
A committee member moved the analyst’s amendment to base prevailing wages on industry standards rather than incumbent pay; the committee opened public comment (none was offered) and then approved the ordinance as amended. The clerk asked the department to provide the revised legislation to the committee by 9 a.m. the following day.
Outcome: ordinance approved as amended; department to deliver amended text to the clerk by 9 a.m. next day.
