Transit Chief Fires Back at MTA’s Board

County transit chief Joseph E. Drew on Monday took the unusual step of complaining to his bosses about the treatment he has received from some of them over his recommendation of a business team to supervise subway tunneling on Los Angeles’ Eastside.

Drew said in a letter to Metropolitan Transportation Authority board members that although they may disagree with him, “what I cannot accept is a lack of support for my integrity.”

“Accusations of lying or improper motives by myself or my staff are unfounded and wrong,” Drew said, adding that he had to speak out “for the good of the MTA, as well as my own peace of mind.”

Drew, facing the toughest crisis of his brief tenure as the MTA chief executive officer, has come under fire for recommending Metro East Consultants to receive the lucrative contract, even though the consortium was ranked last among three bidders by his own panel of experts. Critics of the recommendation have complained that Metro East includes executives with ties to City Councilman Richard Alatorre, an MTA board member.

The transit board has delayed a vote while the MTA inspector general conducts a criminal investigation into the contracting process.

MTA board member and county Supervisor Gloria Molina, among those who have criticized Drew, said Monday that she had never seen anything like the transit chief’s letter.

“I have never been asked as a policymaker to disqualify experts and common sense and exercise blind loyalty to an organization,” Molina said. “It’s one of those letters that reminds one of the Shakespearean line, ‘Thou protesteth too much.’ ”

MTA board member and county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky called Drew’s letter a “feeble” explanation with half a dozen “misstatements.”

“He’s the one who’s damaging the reputation of the MTA,” Yaroslavsky said. The supervisor said that he has never questioned Drew’s honesty, but “I’ve questioned his judgment and his ability to stand up to pressure from powerful MTA interests.”

Drew did not return calls for comment.

Defending his recommendation, the MTA chief executive wrote that he did not dismiss the experts “but drew upon their work in deciding which [bidder] I believe is best able to carry out this important work in very difficult soil conditions.”

“Influence, pressure, even friendships played absolutely no part in my decision,” he said. “To let bidders and their supporters engage in petty politics to publicly suggest impropriety by me in this process and . . . retard our progress in this important project, is a terrible mistake.”

Drew said the board can accept or reject his recommendation, but “should not engage in practices that damage reputations, undermine leadership or are destructive of the MTA.”

Representatives of one bidder continued to take exception to Drew’s recommendation. An attorney representing Bechtel told Drew in a letter Wednesday that the chief executive incorrectly stated in his recommendation to the board that scoring by the expert panel ranked JMA first, Metro East second and Bechtel Infrastructure Corp. third.

Bechtel attorney George D. Kieffer said rules established in bid documents required the MTA staff to give 65% weighting to scores from the four technical construction experts on the panel and 35% weighting to scores from the panel’s three construction management experts. Calculated in this way, Kieffer said, JMA still finished first, but Bechtel finished second and Metro East third.

Kieffer said Drew’s decision to pass over JMA for the work because it had its hands full in a previous contract to supervise tunneling in the San Fernando Valley was reasonable, but Bechtel should have gotten the job because it ranked ahead of Metro East.

Kieffer had previously filed a formal protest at the MTA against JMA’s proposal, declaring that the consortium violated rules governing federal contracts for professional services by stating it would save the agency $78 million. Kieffer said rules allow firms to bid only on the basis of qualifications, not cost savings. JMA officials have said that the issue of cost savings was not a critical component of their proposal.