Are RFQs Immune From Protest Under The Procurement Code?

If you respond to a Request for Quotes (RFQ) issued by a Commonwealth department or agency, can you protest if the resulting purchase order is awarded to another bidder?

According to the Commonwealth’s Office of Administration, the answer is no. In a recent protest, the OA issued a letter which took the remarkable position that “‘Award’ under an RFQ merely results in a Purchase Order under an existing multiple-award contract; therefore an RFQ is not the solicitation or award of a contract, and cannot be protested.”

Needless to say, this position is not supported by a fair reading of section 1711.1 of the Commonwealth Procurement Code which allows an aggrieved bidder or prospective bidder to protest the solicitation or award of a state contract. Certainly, a purchase order that is part of a multiple-award contract is nonetheless a contract; indeed, without issuance of a purchase order, the multiple-award contract is essentially meaningless. Likewise, an RFQ is a solicitation for a quote which may result in a contract – i.e., the purchase order.

Posted on September 7, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Protests, Com. of Pa., Procurement Code Comments Off

Pennsylvania Initiates Disparity Study For Small Diverse Business Program

In June 2017, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania initiated a disparity study that will provide information to help the Department of General Services (DGS) implement the Pennsylvania’s Small Diverse Business Program. The expected completion date for the disparity study is September 2018.

The study will include analyses of the participation of minority-, women-, disabled-, veteran-, and LGBT-owned businesses in prime contracts and subcontracts awarded by DGS during the period from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2016.

DGS has created a webpage highlighting the disparity study, with materials and a description of study team members.

The materials presented at the disparity study’s kickoff meeting can be found here.

An FAQ on the disparity study can be found here.

Posted on August 17, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Com. of Pa., DBE/MBE/WBE, DGS Comments Off

Commonwealth Court: Laches Requires Reversal Of Injunction Issued For Violation Of Separations Act

A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania illustrates the extreme perils of waiting too long to challenge a violation of the public bidding laws.

In December 2015, the West Jefferson Hill School District solicited bids for a new high school project. All sanitary, storm, and water line installations inside and up to five feet outside the building were included in the scope of the prime plumbing contract. All site sanitary, storm, and water line installations more than five feet from the building were included in the scope of the prime general contract as “site utility” work. In January 2016, the school district awarded the prime plumbing contract to Wheels Mechanical Contracting (Wheels). Read more

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Court Decisions, Separations Act Comments Off

Regulations Issued For City of Philadelphia Best Value Contracting

On July 27, the regulations governing the City of Philadelphia’s purchase of goods and non-professional services under the “best value” standard became official.

Under the regulations, the Procurement Commissioner can permit a contract to be awarded under the “best value” standard only after a City department has made a detailed recommendation to the Commissioner. The regulations also cover issues such as the technical scoring criteria, makeup of the selection committee, and the evaluation and scoring of bidder proposals. For example, price must receive at least 30% of the total score and non-price attributes must receive at least 50% of the total score.

Posted on August 3, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Best Value Contracting, City of Phila. Comments Off

Third Circuit Affirms Decision On DRPA Bridge Contract But Reverses Judicial Award Of Contract To Low Bidder

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed a N.J. federal district court decision which found that that the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) had acted improperly in rejecting the low bidder for a painting contract for the Commodore Barry Bridge. My original post on the DRPA case can be found here.

In 2016, the DRPA rejected Alpha Painting & Construction Company, Inc.’s low bid and awarded the contract to Corcon, Inc., the second low bidder. After its protest was denied, Alpha sued the DRPA to rescind the award to Corcon. The district court found that the DRPA’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, and ordered the DRPA to award the contract to Alpha. The DRPA appealed.

On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed with the district court, finding in a lengthy opinion that the DRPA’s decision to reject the low bidder was irrational, arbitrary, and capricious. However, the Third Circuit held that district court went too far in directing the DRPA to award the contract to Alpha. Instead, the Third Circuit remanded the case for entry of a more limited injunction, stating:

Here, DRPA arbitrarily removed Alpha from contention for the Phase 2 contract. Accordingly, Alpha should be restored to competition and DRPA should evaluate Alpha’s bid and affirmatively determine, per its guidelines, whether Alpha, the lowest bidder, is a “responsible” contractor.