|
| |
 |
|
(May 11, 2009) After issuance of an RFP by the Department of Public Works for a construction management contract for a road, Henry K. Pangelinan & Associates (HKPA) was informed that the Evaluation Committee had determined it to be the most qualified for the project. Negotiations between DPW and HKPA ensued for approximately the next fifteen months. Then DPW asked HKPA to confirm its best and final offer and identify the employees to be assigned to the project. HKPA did so. DPW then broke off negotiations, claiming that two employees were unacceptable: the Construction Manager identified did not meet the Scope of Work in the RFP and HKPA had not provided information on the proposed Construction Inspector so DPW could evaluate his qualifications and experience. Nearly a month after receiving the letter from DPW, HKPA protested to the Director of Procurement and Supply. The Director found the protest to be untimely. OPA affirmed the Decision of the Director. Click here for a copy of the appeal.
OPA Affirms Earlier Decision on Untimely Filing by IBSS (March 11. 2009) OPA affirmed its earlier decision that IBSS did not timely file its protest. IBSS did timely file its Request for Reconsideration but it did not raise any new issue on appeal. IBSS argued that if "every rejected bidder was given the right, indeed the cause, to protest simply because their bid was not accepted, then the review process would overtake the procurement process." But if OPA were to accept IBSS’ rationale, every rejected proposer could merely bide its time until it found some basis upon which to protest an award, which would wreak havoc on the procurement process and the need for finality, issuance of a valid contract, and the products or services that are the subject of the contract. IBSS misguidedly relied upon two cases, both of which OPA distinguished in its Decision. Rivera v. Guerrero, 4 N.M.I. 79 (1993), is controlling. In that case, the NMI Supreme Court concluded that the time limit for filing an intra-agency appeal is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Click here for a copy of the appeal.
OPA Denies Appeal Filed by IBSS (February 10, 2009) NMC issued an RFP for copiers. IBSS submitted a proposal. NMC notified IBSS that it did not receive the contract award because “another company offered a lower fee when compared with your offer.” More than three weeks later, IBSS requested all documents pertaining to the solicitation. NMC provided IBSS with the documents it requested about a month after the request. Nine days later, IBSS sent a protest to NMC. More than seven months later, NMC provided IBSS with a “courtesy” response that its protest was untimely. Click here for a copy of the appeal.
This site is best viewed at 1024x768 resolution or higher using Netscape 5.0 or Internet Explorer 5.0 or later versions. |
