Tom Whitehurst

The port's search for facts

If you've been following the actions of the port's new finance committee, or if you haven't, you might find interesting its review of the port's contract with Amtex Security, U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz's company.
   During the committee's first meeting on March 2, its two original members, Kenneth Berry and Robert Gonzalez, questioned port staff extensively about the contract and about how Amtex was chosen in 1998 over an apparent lower bidder who was disqualified. The bidder was disqualified because the port's legal adviser concluded that the company had not been in business for at least five years, a prerequisite. The bidder maintained that he had been in business that long, though not under the same company name.
   The finance committee, which was expanded on Tuesday to four members and has not met since March 9, has covered several subjects that attracted more attention than the Ortiz contract. Those subjects included Sen. Carlos Truan's bill to expand the port commission by two members, the port's practice of allowing contracts under $100,000 to be entered before the full commission has reviewed them and whether some members of the port commission have conflicts of interest.
   Maybe you've made up your mind about the finance committee's actions and motives. If so, the Amtex discussion may not sway you any more than presidential debates do.
   But like those presidential debates, it's still worth your time. So, without further comment, and with no position taken in these quarters, here is about half of the March 2 Amtex discussion, involving Berry, Gonzalez, port attorney Mike Mahaffey, port director of engineering services Frank Brogan, and other staff:
   Berry: "I would like to tell whoever's here that's interested in the Amtex Security contract that there is a legal opinion that was provided by Kleberg and Head regarding this bidding process to the Port of Corpus Christi. ... And that legal opinion was that a number, one or more, of those respondents was not a properly responding bidder. That legal opinion, which is available if anybody wants a copy of it ... (It) essentially said that one or more bidders were disqualified because of failing to meet criteria laid out by the Port of Corpus Christi and that the apparent low bidder was Amtex Security. Staff sent out a written recommendation ... that recommended that Amtex be awarded. And the minutes of the most recent award for the security of the Port of Corpus Christi reflected a unanimous vote to approve the security contract for Amtex. ...
   "I have not been asked about Amtex through the press or news media. I will respond ... the Port Commission as a body, certainly was obligated to award to the low bidder, as it did. And to do anything else would have been contrary to the code that we work under and laws that we work under. And I would respectfully suggest that to those people who think that the security contract was improperly awarded, they need to go to Austin and change the law and quit pointing fingers down here at the port. ...
   "Mike, I've seen the bidder who was apparently ruled out by staff, or by yourself or whomever, on TV a couple of times talking about the process down here, and that's all I'm concerned about, is the bid process, that it has integrity, is properly followed. And have we done any additional research at all since all these stories have developed around this particular bid? Have we found anything that would demonstrate to this port and this finance committee that this is any more than a sour grapes-type problem with a person who was disqualified causing as much ruckus as he can?
   Mahaffey: "I guess I don't know how to answer the characterization that it's sour grapes, but as best I can answer, to my knowledge there has not been anything provided, that I'm aware of, to the staff, that would change either the staff's recommendation or my opinion, which I stated in the open meeting, I believe in 1998, when the contract was awarded."
   Berry: "Do you believe, Mr. Mahaffey, that this particular security bid was properly awarded?"
   Mahaffey: "Yes. That's what I said in the open meeting at the time it was awarded. And I have not seen anything that changes my statement made at that meeting."
   Berry: "And we refer to 1998 but in fact the most recent award for that contract was in 2000. Is that correct?"
   Mahaffey: "There was an option to extend the contract for one year that was included in the contract language that was made in 1998, and so the commission last year ... voted to take that option up and to extend the contract."
   Gonzalez: "Let me first say that I believe that the port should be open and transparent and the public should have access to any documents that the port has in relation to Amtex or any other contracts that we've worked with in the past. I'd like to just go through the history of this and, Mr. Mahaffey I know that you have looked at the history and I'll ask you, when did Amtex first bid on the security contract?"
   Mahaffey: "I believe Amtex was a bidder in 1993. I don't believe they were a successful bidder, but I believe they were a bidder."
   Gonzalez: "They were not the lowest qualified bidder. Is that correct?"
   Mahaffey: "Yes. They did not have the low bid. It was awarded to somebody else."
   Gonzalez: "Who was the chairman at that time?"
   Mahaffey: "Of the Port Commission?"
   Gonzalez: "Right."
   Mahaffey: "Mr. Joe Fulton, I believe, was the chairman."
   Gonzalez: "In 1995 the contract was first awarded to Amtex. Correct?"
   Mahaffey: "I believe that's correct. I think they were the low bidder."
   Gonzalez: "And that was under chairman Joe Fulton as well, correct?"
   Mahaffey: "Yes, I believe he was still chairman then."
   Gonzalez: "In 1998, and I know that's been the issue in the media, regarding that contract being awarded at that time, the chairman was Bill Dodge. Is that correct?"
   Mahaffey: "That's correct."
   Gonzalez: "All right. And the contract was found - Amtex was found - to be the lowest qualified bidder. Correct?"
   Mahaffey: "Well, I guess I would state it a little differently. It's the same result. The low bidder was disqualified. The company with the low bid was disqualified and Amtex was the next qualified bidder at that point."
   Gonzalez: "Why was the company disqualified?"
   Mahaffey: "They had not been, as required by the specifications in the bid, in business continuously for five years as a security service at the time the contract was to be awarded."
   Gonzalez: "I'd like someone to speak ... perhaps Frank ... as to the reasons you would have a five-year requirement on a security company."
   Brogan: "I didn't draft the specifications. The security contract is not within my area of responsibility. In other contracts it's customary to have specified minimum experience levels to prevent contractors with insufficient experience from taking on projects they aren't qualified for. ..."
   Gonzalez: "Why is that even more important with a security company? Would I be correct in saying that with security you have people's lives at stake, you have the environment at stake, you have public property at stake, and facilities? So it is critical that we have a company that has a history and in this case, a five-year history, of protecting other people's assets effectively?"
   Brogan: "Yes."
   Gonzalez: "It's my understanding that (executive director John LaRue) had indicated that the Amtex contract should be extended because of outstanding performance. And just for the record, commissioner Berry and I were not there in 1993, 1995, or 1998 and we were there for the year 2000 vote. Thank you."
   Berry: "Anything else? Any other comments from the public on the security bid? All right. Now we are going to move into some more finance stuff."
  

---

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

---

  © 2000 Corpus Christi Caller Times, a Scripps Howard newspaper. All rights reserved.