Okaloosa County BOCC — June 16, 2015 — CAO Memorandum to BCC — reading text

County Administrator’s Office [ 100 YEARS » ] 1915:' ’/ 2015 Loyntt State of Florida MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: John Hofstad, County Administrator DATE: June 10, 2015 RE: Bid Protest - RFP # GM 18-15 Transit Services On February 3, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposal for Transit Services. A selection committee was appointed and after considering the various submitted proposals, recommended that the contract be awarded to Maruti Fleet and Management, LLC. On Thursday, May 28™ 2015 at approximately 5:00 p.m., the recommendation was posted online as part of the agenda for the Board’s June 2, 2015 meeting. At the June 2" meeting, the Board unanimously approved the recommendation of the selection committee to award the contract to Maruti Fleet and Management, LLC (“Maruti”). On June 5, 2015, a Notice of Protest of Bid Award filed by Okaloosa County Transit, an unsuccessful proposer was received in the County Commission office in Crestview, Florida. The basis of the protest was two grounds. The first ground contained in the Notice of Protest is that Maruti’s bid was not responsive to the Request for Proposals. As to this ground for protest, Okaloosa County Transit asserts three claims. These are that Maruti Fleet and Management LLC, is not a valid Florida limited liability company; that the Proposal submitted by Maruti failed to comply with the Request for Proposal; and that it is insufficient to adequately and safely perform the services requested. The second ground contained within the Notice of Protest is that County staff appeared to have a preconceived desire to find a new transportation provider. Under the County’s purchasing policy, a bid may be protested on grounds that there were material irregularities in the procurement procedures or material irregularities in the evaluation of the bid/proposal. Under the County’s purchasing policy, there is an established procedure that must be satisfied in order to file a protest of a bid or proposal. First, a notice of intent to challenge must be made in writing and delivered to the County Administrator within 72 hours after posting of the intended recommendation of award. Secondly, a formal written challenge shall be filed with the County Administrator’s office within 5 business days after the date on which the notice of intent to challenge has been submitted. The two step process is mandatory. Okaloosa County Administration Building 1804 Lewis Turner Blvd., Suite 400 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547 (850) 651-7515 « FAX: (850) 651-7551 e-mail: jhofstad@co.okaloosa.fl.us In the present case, the notice of proposed recommendation of the award was posted as part of the agenda at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 28. No notice of intent to challenge was filed within 72 hours after the posting of the proposed recommendation. Further, the actual notice of protest of bid award was not received until Friday afternoon, June 5, 2015. Under the policies of Okaloosa County, a two-step procedure must be complied with. The policy itself states: Failure to file a timely notice of intent to challenge or failure to file a timely formal written challenge shall constitute a waiver of challenge proceedings. On Friday, May 29, 2015, Ms. Ruth Lovejoy, a principal with Okaloosa County Transit, requested information from the Purchasing Department as to the procedures for protesting the award and this information was provided to her at 3:45 pm on that date. That information set forth the deadlines for filing the Notice of Intent and the actual Protest. Though being aware of those deadlines, Okaloosa County Transit failed to timely file their Notice of Intent. As Okaloosa County Transit has failed to file its notice of intent to challenge within 72 hours, it is my recommendation that the Notice of Protest of Bid Award be rejected as untimely and all grounds asserted having been waived. Though unnecessary for the purpose of my recommendation, I would note that the purchasing policy states: Challengers who do not submit a legitimate bid/proposal do not have standing to file a protest. Furthermore, challengers who would not be awarded the subject contract even if the protest were successful lack standing. In the present case, there were material deficiencies to the proposal submitted by Okaloosa County Transit to RFP GM 18-15. These included failure to include a “statements from the General and Operations Manager that describe in their own words, the management philosophy, practice and techniques that will be used to manage the system...” and failure to execute the notice of conflict of interest forms as required as part of the RFP. The response of Okaloosla County Transit was not responsive to the RFP and, therefore, would have been rejected . Based upon the foregoing, it is the recommendation of the County Administrator that the notice of protest of bid award be rejected as not being timely filed and having been waived. ! County staff did review the claim that Maruti was not a legal entity in the State of Florida and found that this was not true.