Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By Kyle B. Hansen (contact) 
Published Thursday, June 9, 2011 | 9:04 a.m.
Updated Thursday, June 9, 2011 | 4:23 p.m.
Sun Archives
Sun coverage
After a heated four-hour debate that sometimes sounded more like a court hearing than a government meeting, the Regional Transportation Commission didn’t accept or reject a protest over its contract with a new bus company.
The failure to act on the protest is essentially the same as rejecting it, according to the RTC, but like every other detail of this contract battle, the parties involved also debated that detail.
For now, First Transit remains the winner of the bidding battle for the bus contract, but all sides involved will await an opinion from the state attorney general over a legal issue before going to court for a final decision.
Although the commission runs the valley’s public bus system, the actual operation is contracted to a private company, potentially worth as much as $600 million over seven years.
For the past 16 years, that contract has belonged to Veolia Transportation, part of a huge multinational corporation based in France.
But every few years the contract has to be opened to bidding. When that happened this year, a competitor, First Transit, offered a lower bid, as much as $50 million less over seven years.
First Transit is also a large corporation, based in the United Kingdom, and owns the Greyhound Bus line and operates McCarran International Airport’s rental car shuttles and the RTC’s paratransit service.
With so much money on the line, both corporations hired high-powered attorneys and lobbyists, who helped spread stories about the two companies, rally supporters to contact board members and passionately defend their clients in meetings.
But the board rejected the pleas from Veolia and voted 4-3 May 19 to grant the contract to First Transit.
Veolia quickly filed a protest, saying the process for the contract was flawed and that the commission did not properly approve the contract.
The protest was considered at today’s meeting, when lawyers argued their sides as if they were in court, and Clark County Commissioner Larry Brown, the commission chairman, had to act as judge.
Lee Roberts, representing Veolia, interrupted other presentations with points of order, saying some attorneys present were not licensed in Nevada and should not be allowed to advise the commission.
At one point, former U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, who was representing First Transit, got up and yelled “Objection, your honor,” when a Veolia representative was speaking.
In the end, the board was unable to come to a consensus on the protest and the contract.
The commissioners voted on denying the protest, as was recommended by the RTC staff. Henderson Councilwoman Debra March, Boulder City Mayor Roger Tobler, North Las Vegas Councilman Robert Eliason and Mesquite Councilman David Bennett, the four who approved the contract last time, voted to deny the protest.
But that wasn’t enough to end the issue.
County Commissioners Brown and Chris Giunchigliani, and Las Vegas Councilman Steve Ross voted against the motion and Las Vegas Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian abstained from the vote, saying she had not been given enough time to make a decision.
Tarkanian was appointed to the board last month to replace outgoing Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, but she missed the last meeting because of a schedule conflict.
Even though a majority went against the protest, the vote did not satisfy the five-vote minimum for the eight-member board to take action.
So the board tried the opposite vote, to accept the protest.
All eight people voted the same way, so the motion failed 3-4.
Veolia attorneys say the RTC has to respond to the protest before the contract can move forward.
But that will not likely be the reason for future lawsuits.
Part of Veolia’s protest was that the initial 4-3 vote to grant the contract at the last meeting was illegal.
State law requires boards made up of elected officials to have a majority vote of all members to take action, whether or not all members are present.
Under that standard, the board would have to have five votes to approve the contract, even though only seven members were at the meeting.
Attorneys for the RTC and First Transit argued that the RTC is not covered under the state law regarding majority votes. Commissioners are appointed to the RTC by their respective entities, not voted on by the public and a ninth member, the director of the Nevada Transportation Department, is an ex-officio member who can only vote on certain issues.
Giunchigliani tried to separate the vote issue from the other parts of the Veolia protest and get the board to agree that a five-vote minimum should be required.
Her motion failed, 4-4, with Tarkanian joining the Veolia supporters.
But Brown directed the RTC staff to consult the state attorney general on the matter.
If the attorney general, who is identified in state law as being responsible for open-meeting laws, says the RTC is required to have the majority vote of all members, not just the members present, then the contract granted last month will be invalid, the issue will have to come before the commission again and First Transit will likely sue.
But if the attorney general says the RTC is fine with a four-person vote, the contract will stand and will likely be challenged in court by Veolia.
Some of the commissioners expressed special concern over the possibility of the attorney general deciding against their previous votes, since the meeting law says any violation is a misdemeanor crime.
But Kaplan said even if they were wrong, the board acted on the advice of its legal counsel in good faith and did not willfully violate the law, thus being unlikely to face personal criminal charges.
The RTC has until the end of September to figure it all out. Unless the attorney general or a court steps in, First Transit is set to take over the bus contract Oct. 1. If it’s not settled before then, the RTC may have to try to end Veolia’s current contract and go month-to-month, which could cost more money.
CORRECTION: This story originally reported that First Transit's bid was $50 million less per year, instead of $50 million less over seven years. | (June 10, 2011)
I thought when a bid went out, and bids were accepted, a contract was reached with, supposedly, the lowest bid offer, then that was it??? NOW, it seems, that if you weren't the lowest offer then you get to try to go back and "do over"! What a joke! They're kidding right??? Veolia lost the bid, period. Lost, lost, lost. Now they want to try again, knowing what the other guy bid...uh huh, how is that possible? Seems to me, that if we tried anything like that, us, joe public, we wouldn't be able to get away with it. Let's hope the "commission" does it job and not break laws or NRS codes, or oh my God! their ETHICS and do what is right for a change and give the check to the lowest bidder...we shall see huh....
Sounds like Veolia thought they had it in the bag and so inflated their profit margin in the bid. So much for trying to fleece the southern Nevada taxpayers.
Too bad foreign companies are running local tax payer funded operations. That's not how I like to spend my taxes.
I don't understand what the basis of the protest was. They lost a contract to a lower bidder. What is there to protest? All government contracts should go to the lowest bidder.
>>>I don't understand what the basis of the protest was. They lost a contract to a lower bidder.<<<
They're just looking for an avenue to reopen the contract process. The 4-3 vote is just a technicality that they hope will open the door.
None of these company's are paying the drivers a living wage. Drivers have to be close to dirt poor.
Take a look at what First Transit is paying those airport shuttle bus drivers.. minimum wage baby, or just above it..
What doesn't everyone get? This was getting voted in by the Board Members, not just picked by price. Don't you read what it says? Last time, One member didn't attend or vote....I'd call that unfair or possibly corrupt.
Veolia is an excellent company and treats their employess wonderful, that's why so many attended both meetings on their days off. First Union, on the other hand, might say they will be cheaper....but will cost more in the long run.
Jacob Snow just has a problem with maybe a person, supervisor, whomever at Veolia...so he made this all a political mess hurting the people that are very happy and dedicated to work for Veolia and service the RTC. These are hard working people and they deserve the "RIGHT" to fair voting as it was required.
"Keep Up The Fight Veolia, Don't Go Away", get what you all justly deserve in the American system, the system will eventually see what really is going on here!!!!!!
Lois Tarkanian abstained from voting with the claim that she did not have enough time to make a decision. Just how much time is enough? If she knew that she was incompetent to accept this position, whay did she accept it? This appeal has been in the works since May 19, so she couldn't study the facts in three weeks?
Well for one thing, the drivers at Las Vegas are union drivers so they are going to keep making the same money they are now. Only ones out of a job would be the top management.
Maybe someone should check Tarkanians finances and see who helped bank roll her bid for mayor.
Obivously the system has seen what was going on here and voted for the lowest bidder. And this contract is locked in so if First Transit can't runt he system for what they bid then the money comes out of their pocket not RTC's.
What part of "quorum" isn't clear?
The double-deck buses are a great idea but the bus pulling its own trailer is a bad idea! It takes up too much road space and they run them on the Strip...behind a double-decker! RTC shows it is a poorly run system every time I see this!
I use to work for veolia and last year rtc asked veolia for 2 millone dollors back. And they did. Veolia is makeing a huge profite from rtc. The books that show rtc what veolia pays for parts is wrong. That book system is called the rta. the rtc should make veolia show the real parts invoice to them. Veolia is trying to keep the contract because if first transit gets it an we the tax payer spend less money veolia wood have a lossuite for overchargeing us. Plus read the head line veolia is loseing contracts all over the world because thier involved with a bad group in the middel east. We should not be in buissnes with some one like that.
Snowmike,
I doubt very highly that you ever worked for Veolia. To even say what you are writing, one would have to have a management position to which one could tell you never did by the way you spell. Your spelling shows that you in no way would know something so "ridiculous" as to what you attemot to write here. You need to find something else to do with your spare time, perhaps...taking a spelling and grammar course. Get a Life!