Commonwealth Court Reaffirms No Right To Hearing On Protest Filed Under Pa. Procurement Code

Is there a right to a hearing on a bid protest filed under the Pa. Procurement Code? The answer is no. In a recent, unreported decision involving a contract issued by the Philadelphia Parking Authority for a new red light Read more

Public Bidding 101: Are Proprietary Specifications Permissible?

On a public bid can a public entity direct a contractor to furnish and install equipment made by only one manufacturer?  This question is raised often by clients who complain when the specifications they are bidding against are viewed as Read more

Contract Award Is Not A Contract, But Bidder May Pursue Claim For Damages For Posting Of Bonds

When is a contract award a contract? Virtually never.  Rather, a contract award is just that - an award.  It is not a binding contract and imposes no obligation on the public entity.  In the words of Billie Jean King, a Read more

Commonwealth Court Finds Ambiguity In Bid Spec Creates Bidding Defect Requiring A Re-Bid

Does an ambiguous bid specification create an unlevel playing field?  The answer has almost always been yes, and a recent Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decision reiterates that long-standing principle of public bidding law. In 2011, Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh sought Read more

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms No Right To Hearing On Protest Filed Under Pa. Procurement Code

Is there a right to a hearing on a bid protest filed under the Pa. Procurement Code? The answer is no.

In a recent, unreported decision involving a contract issued by the Philadelphia Parking Authority for a new red light camera system in the city of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court has re-affirmed long-standing precedent that a hearing is not mandatory on a protest filed under the Pa. Procurement Code.  Under 62 Pa. C.S. § 1711.1(e), whether to conduct a hearing is within the “sole discretion” of the head of the purchasing agency.  The Commonwealth Court also held that, under the Pa. Procurement Code, 62 Pa. C.S. § 1711.1(d),  it is not mandatory for a contracting officer to file a response to a protest before issuance of a determination by the agency head.  Finally, the Commonwealth Court found that the denial of a stay of procurement was not in error where the agency head had determined that the protest was clearly without merit and had articulated the substantial interests that would be harmed by a stay.

A copy of the Commonwealth Court decision in Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc. v. Phila. Parking Auth., can be found here.

Share this Post:

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Reddit Pinterest Stumbleupon Email

Posted on by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Protests, Court Decisions, Procurement Code Leave a comment

Public Bidding 101: Are Proprietary Specifications Permissible?

On a public bid can a public entity direct a contractor to furnish and install equipment made by only one manufacturer?  This question is raised often by clients who complain when the specifications they are bidding against are viewed as “proprietary” in nature.  Is this legal, they ask?  Can the public entity really limit the specified equipment to a sole manufacturer?  As always, the answer is, “it depends,” although it is safe to say that all proprietary specifications should be viewed initially as inherently suspect and contrary to the spirit of public and competitive bidding.

The rare, but easy to justify case is where the equipment specified is intended to complement or replace existing unique equipment.  Thus, in Silsby Mfg. Co. v. City of Allentown, 153 Pa. 319, 26 A. 646 (1893), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the purchase of replacement flues for a patented engine, which could not be bought from any other supplier, was not subject to competitive bidding.  In the same vein, if the public entity could buy such unique equipment without competitive bidding, the public entity will likely be permitted to specify the same equipment in the specifications for a contract to furnish and install the same equipment.

The more common, but harder to justify case is where the equipment specified is clearly proprietary (i.e., made by a sole manufacturer), but where the public entity fails to specify acceptable, alternative equipment, or fails to use the words “or equal” after specifying the base equipment.  In this day and age, it is extremely rare that there are not competing sources for building systems equipment.  Today, major pieces of building equipment (e.g., plumbing or mechanical equipment) are manufactured by a multitude of competing manufacturers, and it is fair to say that all operate in essentially the same manner with the same performance and results. In fact, it is the rare manufacturer who has cornered the market for a piece of building systems equipment.

The only reported court decision in Pennsylvania dealing even remotely with proprietary specifications is Direnzo Coal Co. v. Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 825 A.2d 773 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).  In Direnzo, the issue was whether the specified ash content of anthracite coal (12.6%) was unduly restrictive and limiting of competition.  The court rejected the attempt to set aside the procurement, finding:

DGS has discretion to prepare necessary specifications to meet its minimum needs. As addressed above, the change in the maximum allowable ash content from 14% to 12.6% was developed in order to ensure compliance with federal and state regulations pertaining to particulate matter emissions. Therefore, Specification C-80 reflects the legitimate needs of the Commonwealth.

The decision in Direnzo can be found here.

The Pennsylvania Department of General Services Procurement Handbook, Part I, Chapter 13, has this to say about “proprietary specifications”:

Since the purposes for competitive bidding require that all responsible bidders shall have the opportunity to compete, a specification or SOW [statement of work] that has the effect of putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of potential bidders is faulty and illegal. A proprietary specification or SOW has the effect of severely restricting competition.

Recently, I handled a bid protest where the school district specified as “base bid” equipment certain manufacturer-specific pieces of HVAC equipment.  The school district did seek other pricing via alternates and thus agreed that this other “alternate” HVAC equipment would achieve the same result with the same performance as the base bid-specified equipment.  However, rather than specifying all of the HVAC equipment manufacturers as acceptable “base bid” equipment, or using the words “or equal,” the school district elected to favor certain manufacturers over others.  The school district’s attempt to seek alternate pricing for alternative manufacturers proved ineffective where the “base bid” equipment could be purchased only through one manufacturer’s representative and where the representative offered only a lump sum quote for all equipment and refused to provide any “breakout” pricing.  This refusal prevented bidders from providing alternate pricing for alternative heat pumps, as they could not obtain separate pricing for the base bid heat pumps.  Due to the protest I filed, the school district was forced to re-bid the HVAC contract.  This case illustrates the peril of proprietary specification – it is usually not cost effective for the public owner, and it usually limits competition and can lead to higher pricing which is the opposite intent of public bidding.

If you are a contractor faced with a proprietary specification, your best bet is to bring it to the attention of the public owner before bids are due. You should demand the right to offer a substitute that is equivalent to the specified equipment and you should seek to have this substitute equipment accepted as equivalent in all respects.  If this does not work, you should contact experienced counsel who can persuade the public owner of the error of its ways – that the proprietary specification is contrary to the spirit of public bidding and open and fair competition.  Whatever it does, the contractor should not wait until after the bids have been submitted and opened. By then it may be too late.

Share this Post:

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Reddit Pinterest Stumbleupon Email

Posted on by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Specifications, Court Decisions, Public Bidding 101 Leave a comment

Contract Award Is Not A Contract, But Bidder May Pursue Claim For Damages For Posting Of Bonds

When is a contract award a contract? Virtually never.  Rather, a contract award is just that – an award.  It is not a binding contract and imposes no obligation on the public entity.  In the words of Billie Jean King, a contract award is as fleeting as victory.

Recently, in the case of Allan A. Myers LP v. Montgomery County, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania re-affirmed this long-standing principle of public contracting law.  In 2011, Montgomery County issued a request for proposals for roadwork.  After rejecting a bid from another bidder, the Montgomery County Commissioners adopted a resolution accepting the bid of Allan A. Myers LP (Myers).  Later, when the contract award to Myers was challenged by the rejected bidder, the County Commissioners adopted a second resolution rescinding the award to Myers.  Thereafter, Myers filed suit, seeking damages for breach of contract.  The trial court rejected the claim, holding that merely awarding a contract does not create a binding obligation on the public entity to actually execute a contract.

On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, Myers argued that a contract was formed when the County Commissioners adopted the resolution accepting the bid and awarding a contract to Myers.  Myers also argued that it was entitled to pursue damages for the costs related to procuring the required bonds under a non-contractual theory of recovery.  The Commonwealth Court rejected the appeal by Myers, holding that the Second Class County Code governed the award of the contract to Myers and required a signed, written contract (and not simply a resolution).  The Commonwealth Court followed the seminal case of Crouse, Inc. v. School District of Braddock, 19 A.2d 843 (Pa. 1941), where the Supreme Court reasoned that:

When a municipal body advertises for bids for public work and receives what appears to be a satisfactory bid, it is within the contemplation of both bidder and acceptor that no contractual relation shall arise therefrom until a written contract embodying all material terms of the offer and acceptance has been formally entered into. The motion whose adoption is evidenced by the minutes of the school district in the instant case meant merely that the proposal was accepted subject to the preparation and execution of a formal contract or subject to the motion being rescinded before the contract was executed. A preliminary declaration of intention to enter into a formal contract, which was all the motion adopted amounted to, did not in any way limit the school directors’ freedom of future action.

Thus, Montgomery County was free to rescind the award to Myers without liability for breach of contract.  The first lesson here is that the public entity holds virtually all of the cards in the public bidding and contracting context.  Until a formal public contract is signed and executed, there is no contract.  It’s as simple as that.

On the other hand, the Commonwealth Court gave Myers a green light to pursue its claim for damages from having to post bonds in order to preserve its contract award.  In its Complaint against Montgomery County, Myers had alleged that the procurement of the bonds impaired its “ability to seek or to secure other contracts and work which required bonds.” Of course, how strong this claim is remains to be proven.

Significantly, to my knowledge, this is the first time that an appellate court in Pennsylvania has allowed the potential recovery of damages related to the rescission of a public contract award.  Normally, a disappointed bidder has no right to recover damages, and the Commonwealth Court reiterated this long-standing rule by advising Myers that it could not seek damages for any expenses related to procuring the bonds in connection with its bid as these expenses would have been incurred by all bidders. See J.P. Mascaro & Sons, Inc. v. Bristol Township, 505 A.2d 1071, 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986)(a disappointed bidder has sustained no injury which entitles him to redress in court).

So, the second lesson here is that, if you receive a contract award, and post the necessary bonds, and the contract award is then rescinded, you may be able to recover damages relating to the posting of the bonds.  Of course, such a claim will be exceedingly difficult to prove.

The decision in Allan A. Myers LP v. Montgomery County can be found here.

Share this Post:

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Reddit Pinterest Stumbleupon Email

Posted on by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Protests, Court Decisions Leave a comment

Commonwealth Court Finds Ambiguity In Bid Spec Creates Bidding Defect Requiring A Re-Bid

Does an ambiguous bid specification create an unlevel playing field?  The answer has almost always been yes, and a recent Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decision reiterates that long-standing principle of public bidding law.

In 2011, Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh sought bids for a contract to process recyclable materials.  Greenstar Pittsburgh, LLC (Greenstar), a disappointed bidder, brought suit, along with an individual taxpayer, to enjoin the contract award to Pittsburgh Recycling Services (PRS) and to compel issuance of a new bid.  Greenstar argued that language in the bidding specifications was open to more than one reasonable interpretation and provided PRS with an unfair advantage in the bidding process.  The trial court agreed, and determined that the following language in the bid specification was ambiguous:

3.3 QUALIFICATIONS OF BIDDERS

The Contractor’s facility shall be located within a fifteen (15) mile radius from the City’s Department of Public Works . . . located at 30th and A.V.R.R.

The bidding specifications included numerous references to the Contractor’s “processing facility” and a “receiving site.”  As a result, the trial court concluded that Section 3.3 was ambiguous because the word “facility” could reasonably be used to denote either “other receiving site” or the “Contractor’s processing facility.”

On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.  In affirming the trial court, the Commonwealth Court first noted the law governing ambiguity in public bidding specifications:

Our Supreme Court has also recognized that the common standard required to ensure free and fair competition among bidders extends to the form as well as the substance of an invitation to bid for a public contract. In Guthrie v. Armstrong, 303 Pa. 11, 154 A. 33 (1931), the Court concluded that: “The form of the contract is often as vital as anything involved in the transaction, and, unless bidders are on an equality as to knowledge of its proposed provisions, there may be a great advantage to a bidder who has a certain understanding with which the public authorities may agree, over a bidder whose understanding is otherwise.” 303 Pa. at 18, 154 A. at 35. Where a public authority has issued an invitation to bid with provisions subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, while the authority may not have acted in bad faith, the effect may be the same: the common standard is eroded and the public authority can no longer ensure that the public has gained the benefit of fair and just competition among bidders. … As with an ambiguous contract provision, if a provision in bidding specifications is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, the ambiguous provision must be interpreted against the drafter.

In affirming, the Commonwealth Court agreed that it was reasonable to interpret Section 3.3 to mandate the contractor’s processing facility or the contractor’s other receiving site to be located within the specified 15 mile radius, and concluded that Section 3.3 was ambiguous on its face. Because of this ambiguity, the Commonwealth Court recognized that the pool of bidders interested in participating in the bidding process could be impacted:

We are left to speculate how many potential bidders failed to participate in the bidding process because they did not have the interpretation shared by [Allegheny County and Pittsburgh] and PRS and instead shared the same reasonable interpretation of Section 3.3 made by Greenstar.

The hallmark of public bidding is a level playing field, and ambiguous bid specifications are an inherently unleveling force.  Greenstar recognizes this.  So, if you are a bidder encountering an ambiguous bid specification which can affect, e.g., how you compute your bid price, or whether you are qualified to bid, you have encountered an unlevel playing field.  In such case, it is extremely likely that your bid protest will be successful.

The decision in Greenstar Pittsburgh LLC v. Allegheny County can be found here.

A hat tip to my friend and former colleague Wally Zimolong, Esq., who brought this case to my attention and who also blogged about it at his blog Supplemental Conditions.

Share this Post:

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Reddit Pinterest Stumbleupon Email

Posted on by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in General Leave a comment

City Of Philadelphia Contractor Charged With Mail Fraud

Add yet another contractor to the list of victims of the investigative prowess of the City of Philadelphia’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

On May 19, 2014, as a result of an OIG investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office charged Airmatic, Inc., a woman-owned, Malvern-based firm doing business with the City of Philadelphia, with defrauding the City of approximately $556,633.03.  It is alleged that Airmatic supplied “unapproved, off-contract products” to various City departments in violation of its contracts with the City.  If convicted, Airmatic faces a maximum possible sentence of five years of probation, a $500,000 fine, or twice the pecuniary gain/loss, a $400 special assessment, and restitution to the City of Philadelphia.

The takeaway on this latest prosecution against a City contractor?  If you are thinking of pulling a fast one by the City, don’t.  You will get caught, and you will be punished.

The FBI press release on the charges against Airmatic can be found here. The Information against Airmatic can be found here.  The Philly.com article on the charges against Airmatic can be found here.

Share this Post:

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Reddit Pinterest Stumbleupon Email

Posted on by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in City of Phila., Phila. Inspector General Leave a comment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17 18   Next »