Speed camera update: Contract approval vote Monday

October 30, 1:44 PMBaltimore County Republican ExaminerAnn Miller

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Baltimore County Republican Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The speed cameras that were approved in school zones by the Baltimore County Council have not yet been implemented, as the controversial contract with ACS Inc [see previous article] is due for a vote on approval by the council on Monday, November 2 at 7:00 p.m. in Towson. While specific street locations for the approved 15 cameras in the county have not been released, the school zones which will receive them can be viewed here.

Steve Bailey of Americans For Prosperity, who filed an ethics complaint against County Executive Jim Smith regarding the contract award for Baltimore County speed cameras, sent a letter to the Baltimore County Council today. The letter asks the council to reject the contract with ACS and submit a new Request For Proposal for speed camera services.

The letter is reprinted in its entirety below:

"At the Tuesday, October 27, 2009 County Council work session, the Smith administration submitted a contract between Affiliated Computer Services (ACS State and Local Solutions) and Baltimore County for your consideration and approval. The contract in question covers goods and services which cost in excess of 4.5 million dollars over the next two years. This contract was the product of a process that, in effect, circumvented the established and routine practices of the Purchasing Division of the Office of Budget and Finance. For the reasons set forth below, I urge you to reject the contract and require the County to issue a Request for Proposal for services related to the implementation of a speed camera program in Baltimore County.

• In December 2009 the Purchasing Division which is part of the Baltimore County Office of Budget and Finance issued a Request for Proposal No. P-009 for a Digital Red Light Camera System. The proposal made no mention of goods or services related to Speed Cameras. (Appendix A)
• Five different companies, including ACS, expressed interest in the proposal by sending representatives to a pre-proposal meeting regarding the digital red light camera RFP. (Appendix B)
• Prior to the February 13, 2009 due date, ACS submitted a bid that included only services related to the red light camera program and made no mention of services related to a speed camera program. ACS was the only company to submit a bid. (Appendix C)
• Stephen P. Meyer is the senior buyer in the Baltimore County Purchasing Division who was assigned to handle proposals submitted as a result of Baltimore County issuing RFP No. P-009.
• On April 4, 2009, after the bid process was closed, the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation authorizing local jurisdictions (including Baltimore County) to implement speed camera programs in school zones and construction zones. (See Senate Bill 277)
• Between April 15, 2009 and August 7, 2009 there were numerous exchanges of email and letters between Mr. Meyer, and representatives of ACS. These letters and emails constituted part of the ongoing negotiations on the Digital Red Light Camera proposal submitted by ACS and are referenced in the contract ultimately signed by the County. These documents include discussions of a speed camera proposal which was never put out to bid by the Purchasing Division of the Office of Budget and Finance. The emails and letters discuss the number of speed cameras, site analysis, pricing for the equipment, and pricing to run the “back office” operations including issuing tickets and collecting payments. The emails reveal that the County would receive discounted red light camera service pricing, in exchange for the County’s promise to attempt to negotiate terms of a speed camera proposal with ACS before seeking any other bids. (Appendix D)
• On August 7, 2009 these negotiations resulted in the County signing a contract with ACS to update its digital red light camera program. (Appendix E)
• The contract also contains the following legally binding amendment stating “that if it chooses to implement a speed camera program anytime during the first five years after the execution of this contract, the County would attempt to negotiate mutually agreeable speed program pricing, terms, and conditions with the Contractor before seeking any other contract alternative.” The County executed this contract amendment knowing that it had already sponsored legislation that was pending before the County Council to approve a speed camera program. (Appendix F)
• The practical effect of the manner in which the Purchasing Division handled the Red Light Camera contract negotiations with ACS was to circumvent the Request for Proposal process, as it should have applied to a separate speed camera contract. The County has legally obligated itself to reach terms with a specific vendor that is very active politically. (Appendix G) I will be happy to provide you with an updated campaign finance report that includes any contributions made by ACS to elected officials who serve Baltimore County during the past year after those reports are filed in January 2010.

The contract that the County has submitted for your approval is a product of a deeply flawed process that creates the appearance of impropriety. The administration can’t remedy this problem by claiming that it will abandon this contract after a few months and then engage in an open bid process. It would be foolish to think that ACS would be willing to invest in the substantial infrastructure improvements and costs associated with implementing this system if it did not realize that by creating and implementing the Baltimore County speed camera program it was gaining a substantial edge over any potential competitor who wanted to submit a proposal in the future.

The appearance of impropriety can be easily avoided by requiring the Purchasing Division to issue an RFP for these goods and services before implementing the speed camera program. The taxpayers of Baltimore County deserve nothing less."

How citizens can take action:
• Call all seven members of the Baltimore County Council at 410-887-3196 to express your support for the position stated in the letter from Steve Bailey of AFP.
• Follow the phone call up with an email to all seven members. Email addresses are listed in the link list on the right hand side of my Examiner page.
• Attend the Monday legislative session at 7pm at 400 Washington Avenue, second floor. Be sure to arrive 20-30 minutes early to register to testify. You can bring seven copies of your testimony to submit.
• Write letters to the editor in your local paper about this issue.

Warning period ends

Is it a trick or a treat? The 30-day period requiring citations from Maryland construction zone speed cameras to be warnings rather than tickets ends after Saturday, October 31. There are three such speed cameras currently in operation in Maryland, two of which are located in Baltimore County [list of locations].