City rejects protest over Taser contract

Competitor alleged bid noncompliance

Albuquerque’s chief procurement officer has rejected a protest filed over a five-year, $4.4 million on-body camera procurement process, clearing the way for the city to award the contract to Taser International.

The City Council’s Finance and Government Operations Committee discussed the contract this past week and voted 4-1 to forward it to the entire council without a recommendation on whether it should be approved.

Councilor Ken Sanchez voted against the motion, raising concerns about awarding the contract to a company embroiled in a criminal investigation over a previous city contract.

But City Attorney Jessica Hernandez advised the committee that to her knowledge, the investigation was focusing on former Police Chief Ray Schultz and his conduct as a city employee.

“If that investigation found some wrongdoing on the part of Taser, it could create a new basis for us to end the contract later,” Hernandez said.

Attorney General Hector Balderas’ office is looking into the $2 million no-bid contract the city entered with Taser in 2013 because Schultz began consulting work for Taser while he was still on the city’s payroll.

“The Office of the Attorney General has expanded the scope of the investigation, and we anticipate a determination relatively soon,” James Hallinan, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, said Friday.

The city is now planning to buy 2,000 cameras for police officers and cloud storage from Taser, which earlier this week changed its name to Axon.

Albuquerque Police Department Chief Gorden Eden told the committee that APD has only enough cameras to equip mem-

bers of the recruit class that will be graduating.

The city issued a request for proposals in June 2016, received nine responses and narrowed the list to two finalists — Taser International and Utility Associates Inc.

The evaluation committee eventually recommended that the contract be awarded to Taser, prompting Utility Associates to file a protest in March. Utility argues that Taser “failed to meet many mandatory requirements” of the city’s request for proposals and “should have been disqualified as non-responsive.” Utility alleges that the city’s decision not to disqualify Taser “is inappropriate and illegal.”

But Ramona C. Martinez, the city’s chief procurement officer, rejected Utility’s allegations in a determination letter issued to the company this week.

“Although Utility makes many allegations against the city, none rise to the level of noncompliance with the RFP or city law,” she wrote in the letter. “Instead, they appear to be based primarily on speculation, a misunderstanding of the city’s procurement process, and a misinterpretation of the language of the RFP.”

Martinez also pointed to a report issued by the city’s Office of Inspector General in late February that concluded the procurement process used was “fair and unbiased.”

Utility Associates officials didn’t immediately respond to messages left on Friday.