After six months of delays, the agency responsible for statewide emergency communications is free to finalize a $50 million contract for a new two-way radio network to replace an aging one that’s been kept running with spare parts purchased on eBay.
It’s a huge contract that will affect every police and fire department in the state.
In a key ruling Thursday, the Utah Supreme Court lifted a stay placed on the deal because of ongoing appeals by losing bidder Motorola. Long the dominant player in the multibillion-dollar industry and the Utah Communication Authority’s supplier for decades, Chicago-based Motorola accused the agency of bid-rigging and other abuses of state procurement code.
The high court’s two-paragraph order signed by Chief Justice Matthew Durrant lifts the stay without explanation, saying a written opinion will “follow in due course.”
The stay was imposed June 11 by lower courts, where Motorola continues to contest the December award of the contract to Harris Co.
Motorola portrayed the stay as its last chance to successfully challenge the award to its Florida-based competitor and have bidding reopened. Once the contract is finalized, Motorola can only recover costs rung up in the bid and its protest — even if it prevails in court.
The company’s attorney, Christopher Hogle, indicated that was not the remedy Motorola is seeking. A Motorola spokesman declined comment Friday.
Hogle argued that a continued stay wouldn’t cause real harm to Utah emergency communications and that claims of urgency were exaggerated.
“There’s no evidence that [the system] is on the verge of failure,” Hogle said. “They’re five years away from implementing this new system.”
Nathan Marigoni, attorney for the Utah Communications Authority (UCA), countered that continued delay in finalizing the contract with Harris would cause real harm.
“This is a system UCA is running essentially on spare parts,” Marigoni said. While it’s true that the new network is expected to take five years to fully install, a delay of even a few weeks or months “is likely going to cost UCA an extra year.” That’s because of the need to install equipment on remote mountaintops, some of which are inaccessible except in the summer.
The $50 million deal is by far the biggest decision of UCA’s 20-plus year history. While Motorola edged out Harris on technical merit in the competitive bidding, Harris won because its bid was nearly $30 million lower than Motorola’s. The two companies’ rivalry has been described as a “blood feud.”
Harris spokeswoman Natalie Ciao on Friday said the company is “eager to begin work on this important project and continuing our strong partnership with the state of Utah.”
An issue raised in the court hearing was whether Dave Edmunds, UCA executive director, had unilateral authority to sign the final contract with Harris Co. Motorola asserted that such a final action required approval of the UCA board, but the agency argued otherwise.
UCA’s attorney, Marigoni, acknowledged that the agency had intended to take the issue to the board for approval but then opted against it in light of the ongoing court challenges.
Asked why Edmunds and other agency executives had planned to seek the board’s OK if it wasn’t necessary, Marigoni called it a “matter of comity, or involving the board.”
That, retorted Justice Deno Himonas “sounds like a manufactured explanation after the fact.”
Nevertheless, several of the justices indicated that they were unable to see how the court had jurisdiction over the matter.
Edmunds in early April overrode the automatic stay triggered by Motorola’s appeal by exercising his legal authority to declare an urgent need to move forward in the best interest of the state.
“UCA is rapidly approaching a time when replacement parts and equipment will simply be unavailable and, despite the best efforts of UCA and its expert technicians, the current radio system will begin to fail, compromising coverage for public safety agencies across the state,” Edmunds wrote.
A call to Edmunds requesting comment Friday was not returned.
Utah law contains no clear provision allowing appeal of that executive decision — a point which was the focus of much discussion by justices who expressed skepticism that they had any jurisdiction in the dispute.
“How do we not deny this motion?” one wondered aloud.
