You wanted to know how Connecticut is awarding the contract for direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines. You also asked whether states have found that the three top-ranked contenders for the contract have political agendas. You asked specifically about Diebold.

SUMMARY

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) (P. L. 107-252) requires every voting machine used in a federal election to be suitable for use by all voters, regardless of disability. To comply with this mandate and its January 1, 2006 deadline, the secretary of the state (secretary) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for DRE vendors in December 2004. Seven companies submitted proposals, which the secretary ranked to identify the top three: Avante International Technology, Inc. , Danaher Corporation, and Diebold, Inc. The secretary's plan was to award the contract to the vendor who best met the criteria listed in the RFP. But on January 4, 2006, she announced that Connecticut would use its mechanical lever machines for another election cycle because she recently learned that Danaher, her top choice, did not have a federal certification and its machines were not HAVA-compliant.

The secretary will now issue a second RFP and reopen the bidding process. According to Ted Bromley, counsel for the Secretary of the State's Elections Division, she will send a letter to vendors who are federally certified and whose voting systems contain the technology to comply with state election law, and invite them to submit a proposal. According to a January 5, 2006 Hartford Courant article, the secretary said the goal is to have new machines in place for 2007 municipal elections.

There has been controversy about Diebold in other states, particularly in Ohio where its critics allege it has a political agenda. California officials accused the company of breaking state election law by installing uncertified software in machines in four counties. The attached articles provide further information about these concerns. Our research did not reveal any political controversy about Avante or Danaher. But like most of the major DRE producers, they have faced questions about system security and reliability.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

An RFP is often the first step in a competitive negotiation; a method for contracting whereby proposals are solicited from qualified suppliers and changes in proposals and prices are permitted after their submission. It differs from a sealed bid, another procedure for competitive contracting, which does not allow changes in submissions. With an RFP, the awarding agency may ask questions to clarify items in a proposal, explore with an applicant the scope and nature of the required services, and negotiate with those it deems most responsive to the RFP criteria. The agency ultimately awards the contract to the vendor with the best overall value proposal, not necessarily the lowest responsive and responsible bidder as is the case with a sealed bid.

Connecticut's Criteria

The secretary's RFP detailed several criteria upon which her office would rate applicants. The office reviewed the submissions based on those criteria using a price-per-point system. The criteria included:

1. willingness to negotiate a contract, including payment terms, acceptable to the State;

2. compliance with current and amended Federal Election Commission (FEC) Voting System Standards as evidenced by an FEC-issued qualification number;

3. cost;

4. design, capability, and functionality of the voting system;

5. qualify of training package offered for election officials;

6. thoroughness of proposed outreach program;

7. ease of use by disabled and multi-lingual communities;

8. feasibility, timeliness and quality of the implementation schedule, and ability to meet Connecticut's implementation deadlines; and

9. ability to confirm vendor's capability to provide all proposed services.

KS: dw