Tunnel Bid Leaves Panel in Trench Warfare

The nine-month battle at the MTA over hiring a business team to manage subway tunneling on the Eastside sweeps into new territory today, as board members are expected to fix bayonets during an unprecedented hearing into whether one of the bidders was treated unfairly. Then they are scheduled to finally vote.

Debate over the $65-million contract is expected to be the first major test of the board’s new code of conduct because previous attempts to reach a consensus have turned into vituperative contests replete with public accusations of corruption, bias and foul play.

Some board members said they are laying plans to bust gridlock over awarding the contract. One said he may propose that the contract be put out for bid a third time. Another said she may propose that a dark-horse candidate be chosen as a compromise.

And the fireworks are not likely to end with that decision, as the seriously polarized board also is scheduled to vote on whether to abandon plans to build an east-west subway in the San Fernando Valley.

“It’s going to be a hell of a day at sea,” said one board member.

The dispute over awarding a contract to manage Eastside digging has dogged the board for months and was responsible, in large part, for the stormy resignations last month of the MTA’s chief executive, Joseph E. Drew, and construction chief, Stanley Phernambucq.

The history of the contract reads like a Greek tragedy and a Marx Brothers comedy.

In May, a panel of Metropolitan Transportation Authority construction experts first recommended a consortium called Metro East Consultants. The board did not act on the recommendation after the agency’s independent inspector general found irregularities in reference checks by the staff, among other things.

In August, a panel of outside construction experts hired by the board at a cost of $375,000 recommended a team called JMA. The panel ranked Bechtel Infrastructure Corp. second and Metro East third.

In early October, Drew recommended that Metro East get the job. Critics on a board committee charged with taking a preliminary vote on the contract then blasted Drew and his choice, recommending JMA as the top team.

On the day in late October when the board was scheduled to make a decision, however, the inspector general announced that he had launched a criminal investigation into the selection process. The vote was postponed. A month later, Drew withdrew his recommendation of Metro East after the agency’s chief auditor declared that the consortium had made two false statements in its application.

Under strict orders from the Clinton administration to get subway construction back on track, the board in December finally had a chance to vote thumbs up or down on JMA. But members deadlocked, with the team getting only six of the seven votes needed.

In a strange new turn earlier this month, a Superior Court judge threw the whole process into doubt when he ordered the MTA to hold a hearing into whether Drew deprived Metro East of due process by withdrawing his recommendation. At today’s hearing, the firm will get a chance to state its belief that the auditor acted illegally and ask that the board reinstate Drew’s original recommendation.

Metro East attorney Neil Papiano declined to detail his strategy.

But one board member said Papiano is considered likely to attempt to ask questions of Drew and the MTA’s chief auditor as if the session were being conducted in court.

“If it gets out of hand, as I expect it will, it’s going to be disastrous--a totally polarizing, free-for-all kangaroo court that will ensure that no consensus is ever reached,” said the board member.

No board members would predict the outcome.

Board member John Fasana, a Duarte councilman, said he thinks the contract may need to be rebid. “This thing is so contaminated that I’m not sure we can get a clean award out there,” he said.

Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, a county supervisor and board member, said she would prefer to vote for JMA but might move that the board hire Bechtel to break the deadlock. “If it’s impossible to get the votes for the first place team, the logical thing to do is go for the second-ranked team,” she said.

Meanwhile, the board also is expected to decide whether to stop asking the federal government for money to design an east-west subway in the Valley.

Mayor Richard Riordan stunned many on the board last week when he voted in a committee meeting not to ask for the funds and to sponsor legislation to repeal a state law requiring a subway along a two-mile stretch of a proposed Valley rail route.

A spokesman said Riordan today will “reaffirm the policy stated last week with his vote” because he considers the Valley subway too expensive.

Board Chairman Larry Zarian, however, said a county attorney may prevent the vote before the agency holds environmental hearings in March or April on alternative rail technologies and routes for the Valley, as required by federal law.

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who also is a board member, said he hopes the vote is delayed. “If the decision is taken prematurely, it’s an invitation to a lawsuit that will delay the advent of east-west rail in the Valley for a long time--possibly forever.”

Any votes taken today will gauge the board members’ resolve to treat each other with courtesy, as required by the agency’s new code of conduct.

“It will be a test to see if board members can maintain civility,” said Fasana. “Unfortunately, I’m not optimistic.”