Vote-machine firm protests exclusion from La. contract
The Advocate. February 25, 2005. By MARSHA SHULER

Diebold Election Systems has filed a formal protest challenging its exclusion from bidding on a potential $49 million contract to provide Louisiana with new voting machines.

One of the nation's largest voting machine companies, Diebold claimed the actions by the Secretary of State's Office "lack any factual basis and are the result of an arbitrary and discriminatory solicitation process."

The company asked the state purchasing office for an inquiry and to overturn the decision. The secretary of state excluded Diebold's bid because it stated the company failed to meet six of the required 116 specifications.

State purchasing director Denise Lea said Thursday she is investigating whether her office has jurisdiction.

State elections chief Angie LaPlace said she isn't surprised by Diebold's action. But she predicted the process her office used to decide which firms are qualified to bid will withstand scrutiny.

LaPlace said the formal request for proposals has not been completed by the elections agency, a division of the Secretary of State's Office.

"We are working on it around the clock. ? Realistically, we will get it out for April 1," she said.

Louisiana must replace about 5,000 lever-style voting machines that do not meet federal regulations by the federal elections in 2006. The federal government is providing money to buy the machines.

Only three out of eight voting machine vendors meet both state and federal requirements Advanced Voting Solutions, Elections System and Software and Sequoia Voting System, the Secretary of State's Office decided.

Diebold, Accupoll, Populex, Hart Intercivic and Liberty Elections System were excluded because the Secretary of State's Office decided they did not meet state standards.

Diebold spokesman David Bear said the company protested the decision "to preserve the right to have a review ? so we can have an opportunity to continue the conversation."

The protest was filed late Wednesday, the final day of an appeals period, according to company lawyers, Bear said.

Bear said the company still hopes to reach "an amicable" resolution as it continues discussions with elections' office officials.

Lea said she has the protest filing under review. "I'm not sure where their right to protest is," she said.

By law, Lea said, the certification of voting machines is up to the secretary of state. The procurement office comes in after a solicitation for proposals and that hasn't occurred, she said. If the office has jurisdiction, it has 14 days to make a decision on Diebold's appeal, she said.

The secretary of state denied machine certification because it failed to meet six of 116 requirements under new 2005 standards.

But Diebold claims that four of the requirements are identical to 2001 standards, which the machines met. In addition, Diebold claims that it has demonstrated that its machines satisfy the other two requirements.

In its protest, Diebold's attorneys write that the company's machines met 2001 state standards and competed for a voting machine contract.

LaPlace said the standards were rewritten and modified between 2001 and 2005 to reflect d state election needs.

"The Department of State learned a lot from the last go around. We wanted to make sure that the machines would do what they were supposed to do rather than what some company said they are going to do," LaPlace said.

LaPlace said transcripts of meetings with voting machine company representatives are being prepared so protests can be resolved. She said Diebold and Hart had the fewest problems, but failure to meet one requirement would disqualify a company.