Article Highlights
Cubic vaulted to the No. 1 rank in the competition for Miami’s roughly $40 million back-office contract after finishing a lowly fourth in the first round. Some other vendors are believed to be crying foul and considering protests. Critics, among other things, point to an alleged conflict of interest from Cubic teaming up with existing hardware provider Genfare as part of an “exclusive partnership.”
• Table: Evaluation scores, ranks and price bids
• Document: First round score sheets, point totals
• Document: Second round score sheets, point totals
• Letter: Genfare letter endorsing Cubic for contract
• Slide: Joint leadership team, Cubic-Genfare partnership
• Slides: Cubic-Genfare partnership
• Slide: Reponse by Cubic on question about avoiding delays
• DTPW (Miami)
• Miami-Dade Transit
• Cubic
• Genfare
• Masabi
• moovel
• INIT
• Indra
• Kuba
• Flowbird
• Token Transit
Cubic Transportation Systems vaulted into the lead in the second and final evaluation round for a back-office contract with the county agency that oversees Miami-Dade Transit despite finishing tied for fourth after the first round. One or more competing vendors are expected to file protests.
The manner in which Cubic ended up in the No. 1 spot among a total of nine vendors originally vying for the estimated $40 million contract is believed to have left at least some competing vendors crying foul and caused one or more of them to hire lobbyists, Mobility Payments has learned.
Subscription Required
This premium content is only available to subscribers
Article has about2499words.
To keep reading, subscribe today
Get access to premium content from the only global publication devoted exclusively to mobility payments by subscribing today to the most authoritative source for news and analysis in the industry.
