OPA upheld the decision of the Division of the Procurement and Supply when it denied the protest made by Resources Management International Corporation.
In ruling, Public Auditor Mike Pai stated he “affirms the denial of the protest by the Director of the Division of Procurement and Supply.”
Appellant RMIC filed a protest in the instant case on March 14; however, it appealed to OPA when no decision had been issued by Procurement and Supply on April 6. The latter issued its decision on April 12. Then RMIC re-filed its appeal the following day.
In its appeal to OPA, RMIC argued that the decision by the director of Procurement and Supply “contains no measurable basis for disregarding the lowest bid submission…which implicates the issue of the qualifications of the evaluators.”
OPA said the RFP clearly stated the relevant technical criteria: experience and capability, 35 points; project organization and staffing, 25 points; and financial capability, 15 points. It cited the RFP that the price is a factor to be considered and evaluated in comparison with overall merit of proposals. It, however, highlighted that “technical merit is more important than prices and the government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposers. As proposals become more equal in technical merit, the importance of price will increase.”
In RMIC’s claim that there was no measurable basis to distinguish the bids, OPA said, “technical merit scores were dramatically disparate” as it showed that winning bidder’s score was 275, ahead of RMIC’s 153 and Marianas Medical’s 151.
OPA found appropriate Procurement’s decision in not selecting the lowest bidder due to the significant performance risk.
Moreover, appellant argued that it had met one of the criteria listed for the local bidder preference. OPA said RMIC failed to identify relevant applicable criteria. It further stated in its ruling that “it is not the duty of the evaluators or the Director of Procurement and Supply to solicit additional information to substantiate which criteria RMIC allegedly met.”
RMIC questioned the qualification of the evaluators to which OPA replied that the agency has the discretion to appoint the evaluators and its decision will not be examined absent a showing of fraud, bad faith, conflict of interest, or actual bias.
OPA said “mere disagreement with the evaluation does not render the evaluation unreasonable” and appellant failed to prove fraud, bad faith, conflict of interest, or actual bias.
RMIC also argued that the bid was made by a sole proprietorship but contract was awarded to a corporation and no check was made to establish the relationships of the various entities involved in the Guam Marianas Collection Agency (doing business as Guam Marianas Management Services) — the awardee.
RMIC argued that the awardee was not qualified to do business in the CNMI at the time of its bid, which establishes that the evaluators negligently performed evaluations.
OPA ruled that “unless the business license requirement is incorporated in the RFP or IFB, the bidder need only possess the business license at the time of the signing of the contract, not the time of the award.
OPA said this meets the government’s purpose to encourage participation of bidders even from off island to obtain the best price for the service of goods or services.
Public Auditor Mike Pai issued his decision on July 6 and said the appellant or any interested party may request reconsideration of the OPA’s decision 10 days after the basis for reconsideration is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier.
