When will the Delaware River Port Authority learn to conduct its business in an open and transparent manner?
It's been more than three years since it was confirmed that a federal grand jury was looking into the spending practices of the Delaware River Port Authority. With no indictments, and no progress reported to date, we were beginning to think the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office had found no "there" there.
But just when we were ready to put to rest our skepticism about the "new, improved" DRPA, comes a scathing admonishment from a federal judge in a case about one set of bids -- for painting the Commodore Barry Bridge between Logan Township and Chester, Pa.
The judge's ruling reversed a DRPA contract award to the second-lowest bidder. The decision resulted from litigation filed by Alpha Painting & Construction Co. -- the lowest bidder, which the DRPA had passed over.
In awarding the contract to Alpha, rather than initial bid winner Corcon Corp., Judge Noel L. Hillman called the original award "an undocumented process shrouded in mystery and obscured from public scrutiny."
Barely $10,000 separated the two firms' bids. Both were about $17.8 million. It's small change to the DRPA, but the greater point is about what the judge labeled a "Kafkaesque" system.
Such lack of clarity for an $18 million bid portends poorly for about $700 million worth of contracts the DRPA is set to give out in the next few years, Hillman wrote.
What's most alarming is that this case involves a strict bidding process. This isn't about the no-bid professional appointments that the port authority so often makes, nor the problem-plagued $500 million "economic development" program that drew the feds' attention amid complaints that most money flowed to politicians' pet projects.
It's an old trick to steer a contract to a preferred vendor by deeming lower-cost bidders "not qualified." This finding is legitimate in Alpha's case, say DRPA lawyers. The agency plans to appeal the judge's ruling.
The scariest part is that an intelligent federal judge waded through a thicket of specifications and still couldn't find reasons other than "arbitrary and capricious" ones to shut out Alpha. Further, the judge stated, the DRPA used an attorney-client privilege claim to keep a veil of secrecy over what should be public record.
References to "the Wizard of Oz before the curtain is thrown open" are uncommon in this type of judicial opinion, but Hillman chose to invoke the image for the DRPA's internal bid-review process.
"The evidence has revealed that DRPA's bid review process only presents an illusion, and not the reality, of transparency," the judge added.
The more the DRPA tries to reinvent itself as a bastion of transparency, the more the facts show otherwise.
Even if the feds' probe turns up nothing criminal, the DRPA still needs to restore public confidence after squandering hundreds of millions of bridge-toll dollars on dubious outside projects and risky investment strategies. Clean up your act, folks. If the lowest-price bid doesn't win a contract, the reasons why need to be transparent and defensible in court.
Send a letter to the editor of South Jersey Times at sjletters@njadvancemedia.com