Community

OP-ED: BART Hires Georgia Firm for Disparity Study, Ignores Qualified Cheaper Local Bidder

Published

10 years ago

May 13, 2015

By Barbara J. Thomson

Despite BART board policy to contract with small local businesses, the Board of Directors at their April 9 meeting voted unanimously to award a contract to study discrimination in contracting to a Georgia firm – Miller3 – with limited experience in the field.

The lowest bidder—a nationally recognized Oakland firm located in BART’s service area for more than 30 years—was passed over for the contract to conduct the study to investigate BART’s contracting practices.

Local business leaders are questioning how the contractor selection to conduct a disparity study that produced such unfair results could have been impartial. They are calling for transparency and disclosure of the selection process.

Business leaders want an explanation of how the proposals were evaluated and how BART’s Office of Civil Rights could rank the Georgia firm number one, and an international firm that has never performed a disparity study was ranked number two.

The Oakland firm— Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd.– which has completed more than 130 legally unchallenged studies, including the current unchallenged BART study—was only ranked number three.

The BART Office of Civil Rights’ report to the board stated, “[A]t the conclusion of the evaluation process, staff conducted a best value analysis and determined that Miller3 represented the best value to the district.”

The Georgia firm’s proposed bid was over $100,000 more than the Oakland firm—a California certified business that has performed more than 100 disparity studies for large clients such New York City, New York State, Texas, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

BART’s 2007 Disparity Study was performed by Mason Tillman. Leaders note that it is difficult to understand how BART officials could recommend and directors vote to approve a contract that will cost the public an extra $100,000.

They also question how this decision can be justified as “the best value” for Bay Area residents and riders.

Wayne T. Wong, Department Manager for BART’s Office of Civil Rights testified that the staff’s recommendation was proper because BART had budgeted an estimated cost of over $1 million for the project, and the Georgia firm’s bid came in at $668,050.

Staff analyses show that the cost to taxpayers and riders could have been reduced by almost $100,000 had BART selected a local small business with a national reputation that hires local residents and pays local taxes.

BART’s willingness to pay the additional amount is noteworthy at a time when every penny should be scrutinized because BART intends to go again to the voters for a bond measure this time to subsidize a $9.6 billion shortfall found by the State Auditor.

In these economic times, socially responsible agencies are mindful that local hiring is important to all district residents.

The bid proposal also required the contractor to “[M]aintain, or be able to maintain, an office location in California within 100 miles of the District’s Headquarters” in downtown Oakland.

According to the Office of Civil Rights Manager Wong, the Georgia firm plans to “rent or lease space from one of its sub-consultants in Vallejo or Novato. Neither city is in a county with BART district tax rates.”

The nationally respected Oakland disparity study consultant that BART did not select is headquartered across the street from BART headquarters, where it employs 20 staff.

The firm hires locally and for 30 years has supported the local economy, and pays payroll, sales, and BART district taxes.

The Oakland business is not only a local company, but it is a good corporate citizen that hires Oakland minority high school student interns, mentors young professionals, and supports Oakland nonprofit organizations.

In passing over the Oakland firm, BART failed to comply with its own policy, and the Office of Civil Rights has failed to comport with its mission to ensure an equitable contracting process for local, small, and minority/woman-owned businesses.

In voting to select the Georgia firm for this contract, BART Directors raise suspicion about their fiduciary responsibility.

For more information, watch BART’s April 9 board meeting, Item III.B, at www.bart.gov/about/bod/multimedia.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

McElhaney Puts Damper on Tagami’s Coal Plan

Don't Miss

OP-ED: Oakland Needs a Department to Address Institutionalized Injustice

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Gov. Newsom Approves $170 Million to Fast Track Wildfire Resilience

AB 100 approves major investments in regional conservancies across the state, including over $30 million each for the Sierra Nevada, Santa Monica Mountains, State Coastal, and San Gabriel/Lower LA Rivers and Mountains conservancies. An additional $10 million will support wildfire response and resilience efforts.

Published

16 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Courtesy of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Facebook page.

By Bo Tefu
California Black Media

With wildfire season approaching, last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 100, unlocking $170 million to fast-track wildfire prevention and forest management projects — many of which directly protect communities of color, who are often hardest hit by climate-driven disasters.

“With this latest round of funding, we’re continuing to increase the speed and size of forest and vegetation management essential to protecting communities,” said Newsom when he announced the funding on April 14.

“We are leaving no stone unturned — including cutting red tape — in our mission to ensure our neighborhoods are protected from destructive wildfires,” he said.

Newsom also signed an executive order suspending certain regulations to allow urgent work to move forward faster.

This funding builds on California’s broader Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, a $2.7 billion effort to reduce fuel loads, increase prescribed burning, and harden communities. The state has also launched new dashboards to keep the public informed and hold agencies accountable.

California has also committed to continue investing $200 million annually through 2028 to expand this effort, ensuring long-term resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Rideshare Drivers and Supporters Step Up Push to Unionize

Today in California, over 600,000 rideshare drivers want the ability to form or join unions for the sole purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It’s a right, and recently at the State Capitol, a large number of people, including some rideshare drivers and others working in the gig economy, reaffirmed that they want to exercise it.

Published

16 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

On July 5, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into federal law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Also known as the “Wagner Act,” the law paved the way for employees to have “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,” and “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, according to the legislation’s language.

On April 8, the rideshare drivers held a rally with lawmakers to garner support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1340, the “Transportation Network Company Drivers (TNC) Labor Relations Act.”

Authored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1340 would allow drivers to create a union and negotiate contracts with industry leaders like Uber and Lyft.

“All work has dignity, and every worker deserves a voice — especially in these uncertain times,” Wicks said at the rally. “AB 1340 empowers drivers with the choice to join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. When workers stand together, they are one of the most powerful forces for justice in California.”

Wicks and Berman were joined by three members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC): Assemblymembers Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), and Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights).

Yvonne Wheeler, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; April Verrett, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Tia Orr, Executive Director of SEIU; and a host of others participated in the demonstration on the grounds of the state capitol.

“This is not a gig. This is your life. This is your job,” Bryan said at the rally. “When we organize and fight for our collective needs, it pulls from the people who have so much that they don’t know what to do with it and puts it in the hands of people who are struggling every single day.”

Existing law, the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” created by Proposition (Prop) 22, a ballot initiative, categorizes app-based drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft as independent contractors.

Prop 22 was approved by voters in the November 2020 statewide general election. Since then, Prop 22 has been in court facing challenges from groups trying to overturn it.

However, last July, Prop 22 was upheld by the California Supreme Court last July.

In a 2024, statement after the ruling, Lyft stated that 80% of the rideshare drivers they surveyed acknowledged that Prop 22 “was good for them” and “median hourly earnings of drivers on the Lyft platform in California were 22% higher in 2023 than in 2019.”

Wicks and Berman crafted AB 1340 to circumvent Prop 22.

“With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of workers to raise the bar in their industry and create a model for an equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector,” Berman said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Holds the Line on DEI as Trump Administration Threatens School Funding

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

Published

17 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Joe W. Bowers Jr
California Black Media

California education leaders are pushing back against the Trump administration’s directive to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in its K-12 public schools — despite threats to take away billions in federal funding.

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

According to Trainor, “DEI programs discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

On April 3, the DOE escalated the pressure, sending a follow-up letter to states demanding that every local educational agency (LEA) certify — within 10 business days — that they were not using federal funds to support “illegal DEI.” The certification requirement, tied to continued federal aid, raised the stakes for California, which receives more than $16 billion annually in federal education funding.

So far, California has refused to comply with the DOE order.

“There is nothing in state or federal law that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” wrote David Schapira, California’s Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in an April 4 letter to superintendents and charter school administrators. Schapira noted that all of California’s more than 1,000 traditional public school districts submit Title VI compliance assurances annually and are subject to regular oversight by the state and the federal government.

In a formal response to the DOE on April 11, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond collectively rejected the certification demand, calling it vague, legally unsupported, and procedurally improper.

“California and its nearly 2,000 LEAs (including traditional public schools and charter schools) have already provided the requisite guarantee that its programs and services are, and will be, in compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulation,” the letter says.

Thurmond added in a statement, “Today, California affirmed existing and continued compliance with federal laws while we stay the course to move the needle for all students. As our responses to the United States Department of Education state and as the plain text of state and federal laws affirm, there is nothing unlawful about broad core values such as diversity, equity and inclusion. I am proud of our students, educators and school communities who continue to focus on teaching and learning, despite federal actions intended to distract and disrupt.”

California officials say that the federal government cannot change existing civil rights enforcement standards without going through formal rule-making procedures, which require public notice and comment.

Other states are taking a similar approach. In a letter to the DOE, Daniel Morton-Bentley, deputy commissioner and counsel for the New York State Education Department, wrote, “We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.’ But there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.”