close

Peters, North Strabane ask judge to review emergency radio contract

By Mike Jones staff Writer mjones@observer-Reporter.Com 5 min read
article image -

A judge in Washington County will have to decide whether to temporarily halt the plan to overhaul the county’s emergency responders radio system after two municipalities sued claiming the “most responsible bidder” that public safety officials preferred was not selected.

Peters Township and North Strabane, along with two of their public safety leaders, asked for the temporary injunction Thursday to stop the initial payments to MRA/Tait for its $22.545 million contract with the county over concerns about the effectiveness of the vendor’s radio system and how the commissioners handled the bidding process.

Judge Gary Gilman agreed to the temporary reprieve and scheduled a hearing beginning at 8:30 a.m. today in the Washington County Courthouse for testimony on the topic from county and emergency officials about the system and whether the commissioners followed proper procedures in awarding the contract in March.

Peters solicitor John Smith, alongside North Strabane solicitor Gary Sweat, argued that the process was not handled correctly and a public safety subcommittee tasked with studying the radio issue overwhelmingly recommended the other vendor, Motorola, over concerns about MRA/Tait’s track record with the current system.

“If they build this system and it doesn’t work, police and firefighters will get hurt,” Smith said during his pleadings. “This is what those police officers and fire chiefs are so worried about.”

The county commissioners voted 2-1 on March 16 to award the contract to MRA/Tait after hearing numerous public comments from police and fire officials who objected to the decision. Commissioners Diana Irey Vaughan and Larry Maggi vote in favor of going with MRA/Tait, while Commissioner Nick Sherman dissented after initially trying to delay the vote. Irey Vaughan said at the time that MRA/Tait’s bid came closest to the county’s $20 million budget for the project, although Motorola’s bid was not disclosed at the time.

County solicitor Jana Grimm said it’s been more than seven months since that vote and they are already late in making initial payments to MRA/Tait after county Controller April Sloane declined to cut the checks. Grimm said they must make the initial deposit payment to MRA/Tait – estimated to be nearly $3 million – by today or they could face lawsuits from the vendor.

“I perceive this as an ambush,” Grimm said of the last-minute motion to halt the contract. “I think this proceeding, this filing at this period of time, is totally inappropriate.”

She said time was of the essence both because the payments to MRA/Tait are past due and some equipment has already been purchased and is being stored at the county airport awaiting installation. In addition, the system is being funded through federal American Rescue Plan Act money, which must be spent by 2026 or be returned to the U.S. Treasury.

“This (deposit) check needs to be paid, it needs to be sent,” Grimm said. “This needs to move forward.”

But Smith raised other concerns about the MRA/Tait contract, including a study performed by public safety consultant Mission Critical that he claimed found “holes” in system and questioned its feasibility. When the commissioners approved the motion, they agreed to execute the contract only after a study was performed by Mission Critical to see if the system was compatible with the current radio infrastructure. Smith claimed that county officials – except for Sherman – stopped communicating with Mission Critical as doubts were raised, and instead moved forward with the contract in August.

“They weren’t telling the county what they wanted to hear,” Smith said.

Smith added that the bidding process might not have been done correctly. He said the initial request for proposal was advertised in September 2022 with a deadline to submit by December, although it was moved up to November. The county later allowed the only two applicants, which were MRA/Tait and Motorola, to submit “revised bids,” although Smith argued that the process should have been advertised again since the initial bids were essentially rejected.

MRA/Tait submitted its revised bid of $22.545 million that was approved, but the commissioners apparently did not wait for Motorola’s updated submission after publicly claiming the original bid was much more expensive. Afterward, Motorola submitted its revised bid, which would have cost the county $17.6 million, plus about $532,000 in annual maintenance and tower site leases. That revised bid would have been about $5 million than what MRA/Tait offered.

“We all want a system that works,” Smith said. “The current system doesn’t work. The MRA system doesn’t work.”

Grimm questioned whether the two townships and their fire chiefs even had standing to challenge the issue in court, and noted that Motorola did not file a lawsuit over how the process was handled.

“Do we agree the (radio) system needs to be upgraded? Yes. Do we agree it needs to happen? Yes,” Grimm said. “This lawsuit stops everything.”

Peters Township Council voted Monday night to pursue legal action, with North Strabane Township supervisors apparently following suit. The lawsuit was filed by the two municipalities, along with Peters fire Chief Mike McLaughlin and North Strabane Emergency Management Coordinator Mark Grimm, both of whom were named in their individual capacities.

Gilman agreed to hear testimony today, which could be lengthy and involve many county and public safety officials who were a part of the radio system’s review process. He could then rule about whether an injunction should be in place to block the radio system from being implemented.

“The evidence and witnesses in the matter, really, are the county’s people,” Smith said.

After Thursday’s hour-long hearing, county Chief of Staff James McCune could be seen talking to township officials and their attorneys outside the courtroom about the situation before leading them for what he termed was a discussion for a possible “settlement.” No details were released about what was discussed at the meeting or what a potential settlement would mean for the situation.

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $3.75/week.

Subscribe Today