required to successfully perform the contract.
DPW labeled RMIC a “non-responsible” contractor.
RMIC filed an appeal with DPW, which reaffirmed its decision in Jan. 2008.
The company, through attorney Douglas F. Cushnie, filed a protest with OPA and claimed that DPW’s non-responsibility determination “has effectively debarred RMIC from participating in future government contracts and that the determination was based on unsupported conclusions.”
On May 19, DPW reiterated its rejection of RMIC’s bid.
According to DPW, the company neither have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them, nor a satisfactory performance record of integrity and business ethics.
RMIC lacked the necessary organization, experience and skills required to perform the contract as well as the necessary production, construction and technical equipment facilities, DPW stated.
This determination appeared to be based in great part on RMIC’s performance in two recently completed construction and renovation projects for the government involving detention centers on Rota and Tinian.
“Although RMIC had completed other government contracts, those contracts were construction contracts,” OPA said. “RMIC’s previous construction contracts involved contemporaneous procurements for construction services and appear to be the most comparable to the work to be performed.”
OPA said DPW has a reasonable basis in rejecting the company’s bid.
The determination, however, was specific to the Tinian construction project, OPA added.
“There is no evidence that this determination of non-responsibility is part of a long-term disqualification attempt,” OPA said, adding that RMIC may compete in the future for government contracts.
