Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bidders clash over automated‑enforcement contract; county defends selection after protests about local preference points
Summary
Bid protestors argued the top‑ranked firm won local‑preference points for a claimed Orange County location that did not exist and failed to disclose a terminated Montgomery County contract; procurement staff and Modaxo defended the award, and the board accepted the procurement committee’s recommendation unanimously.
A contested procurement for Orange County’s intersection automated‑enforcement safety system drew protest during the June 16 public comment period and prompted a detailed explanation from procurement staff before the board approved the committee recommendation.
David Allen of Vera Mobility told the board the award should be overturned because the winning vendor, Medaxo, received 10 local‑preference points for declaring an Orange County facility that Allen said did not exist at the time of submission and because the firm failed to disclose a prior terminated contract with Montgomery County, Maryland. "Medaxo never actually identified an Orange County location," Allen said, urging the board to reconsider awarding the contract.
Modaxo representative Ryan Horland responded that Modaxo listed a specific Orange County location it intended to lease and that the company disclosed an administrative dispute with Montgomery County in its proposal; he said a settlement document emerged after proposals were submitted. "Modaxo identified a specific location within Orange County that they would lease ... and disclosed this location on the form," Horland said.
Procurement manager Carrie Matthysse told the board that page‑limit adjudication and scoring followed consistent county practice: panels exclude pages that exceed prescribed page limits and may reassign unclear pages to the appropriate evaluation criterion. She also said Medaxo had identified an active dispute in its proposal and that settlement documents were received later; the procurement committee judged that the company’s proposal was responsive and the scoring reflected disclosed facts and committee judgments.
After legal and procurement explanations, the board voted unanimously to accept the procurement‑committee recommendation and select the ranked firms for the contract; the decision included a public record of the committee’s scoring rationale.
What’s next: Procurement will finalize contract awards and the county will continue to document and respond to formal protest filings in accordance with procurement rules. The procurement manager said the county will re‑advertise other contracts where necessary and continue to apply consistent page‑limit and qualification checks during evaluations.
