dando guerra on May 28, 2009, at 12:56PM – #1

correct spelling is "Cecilia Estolano"

Kate Barner on May 31, 2009, at 06:49PM – #3

AnsaldoBreda has a past record of not complying with their contract with the LA County MTA in terms of car weight, delivery time, etc. Liquidated Damages should be in the contract if it wasn't. Otherwise the MTA should have taken legal action to enforce the contract and consider another bidder.

In terms of "pledges" to build cars in Los Angeles, this should be established with a binding legal document with a letter of credit backing it up.

Jake on June 02, 2009, at 11:21AM – #4

A common thread in many of the postings I have read is that people don't really know what's going on. It's always easy to blame the contractor, especially when the press simply states that the contractor, in this case AnsaldoBreda, did't comply with the contract requirements. Whether it's the wrong size seats, overweight, or in Boston the cars couldn't stay on the tracks. The problem is one needs to know both sides of the story to make a determination. Something like the size of the seats is clearly specified in a contract so why would the car builder not order the right ones since to do otherwise would result in rejection. AnsaldoBreda claims that the required seats were provided, so maybe we should investigate what the MTA asked for. In Boston, yes the Bredas derailed, but the MBTA spent millions on repairs because the track was heavily damaged by the older Kinky-Sharyo cars and the problem never corrected, not because Breda didn't build them right. Yes, they had other problems, but lets not always assume every problem originated at the same source.

In order to make informed judgements, one must first be properly informed. Judging by the broad spectrum of information, opinions and data, some substantiated most not, it would appear that most people are assuming a great deal. The first pitfall being that infromation in the press is correct and some is, but some is not.

The decision before the MTA is a simple one where none of the information/misinformation about quality, reliability, schedules, etc., matters at all. The question is whether a contract should be awarded to ANYONE simply because they are doing the city, any city, a favor. The answer is an unequivocal "No" because to do otherwise means that the people in charge can be bought; all the controls and ethics rules that are in place will mean nothing and it's a message to all contractors and vendors that it's ok to break the rules.

Kate Barner on June 02, 2009, at 10:28PM – #5

The MTA has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for the working class taxpayer and rider especially with the current budget and financial crisis. The MTA needs to enforce compliance with appropriate Contract Administration procedures and quality control. And most importantly they should never take a verbal promise--Any offer for public benefits such as a local factory needs to be spelled out in a binding contract with penalties if AnsaldoBreda once again reneges on their promise to the County and the City's CRA. Even without AnsaldoBreda's past poor performance as an issue, this policy should apply equally to all vendors.

As a side note, AnsaldoBreda's problems with late deliveries aren't limited to Los Angeles and Pittsburgh--Danish rail operator DSB is experiencing the same problem.

Kengikat on July 29, 2009, at 05:55PM – #6

"The MTA has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for the working class taxpayer and rider especially with the current budget and financial crisis."

This is very funny. MTA doesnt give a damn about its riders or the taxpayers. Have you seen the TAP card and how lousy it is. Do you even ride METRO and when I say ride I mean because you have no other choice.

MTA does not care about their riders. That was very funny Kate

Kate Barner on August 14, 2009, at 08:44PM – #7

Kengikat, I can't argue with logic and reason, you're not being fair.