https://www.americancityandcounty.com/wp-content/themes/acc_child/assets/images/logo/footer-logo.png
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcast
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Resources
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Events
    • How to Contribute
    • Municipal Cost Index – Archive
    • Equipment Watch Page
    • American City & County Awards
  • Magazine
    • Back
    • Digital Editions
    • Reprints & Reuse
    • Advertise
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Service
American City and County
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • Co-op Solutions
  • Commentaries
  • News
  • In-Depth
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Podcasts
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Events
    • How to Contribute
    • American City & County Awards
    • Municipal Cost Index
    • Equipment Watch Page
  • Magazine
    • Back
    • Digital Editions
    • Reprints & Reuse
    • Subscribe to GovPro
    • Manage GovPro Subscription
    • Advertise
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Cookie Policy
    • Privacy Stament
    • Terms of Service
  • newsletter
  • Administration
  • Economy & Finance
  • Procurement
  • Public Safety
  • Public Works & Utilities
  • Smart Cities & Technology
acc.com

Procurement


Responsive or not?

Responsive or not?

Richard Pennington examines two recent cases to highlight special problems in applying concepts of responsiveness in requests for proposals (RFPs).
  • Written by Richard Pennington
  • 1st February 2011

“A non-conforming bid is no bid at all.” So says a New Jersey court, thus illuminating the issue of responsiveness for public procurement professionals and contractors. Individual state and local governments have varying rules governing issues of responsiveness and rejection of bids and proposals. This article uses two recent cases to highlight the special problems in applying concepts of responsiveness in requests for proposal (RFPs).

Kirk Buffington and Michael Flynn’s NIGP textbook, The Legal Aspects of Public Purchasing, explains the responsiveness rules and the policy behind them. In traditional competitive bidding, a public agency has a duty to reject those proposals that are not responsive, such as those that fail to comply with the invitation to bid in a material way. The responsiveness rule requires substantial conformity to specifications and solicitation terms; the rule promotes objectivity and fairness in the public bidding process. Moreover, the responsiveness requirement ensures that vendors are competing on an equal footing. It further promotes a long-held policy of protecting against abuses such as fraud in connection with the awarding of contracts. As Buffington and Flynn describe, a vendor could learn during the public bid opening how its bid compared to competitors and then try to revise or withdraw a bid considered improvidently submitted. The companion rules about waiver of minor informalities in bids and withdrawal of a bid for mistakes protect against these abuses.

The application of the responsiveness concept to requests for proposals is more difficult. In many jurisdictions, there is an opportunity in requests for proposals (sometimes called “competitive negotiation”) for the government and offerors to communicate after submission of proposals. There may be exchanges to clarify aspects of the proposal. Further, there may be discussions or negotiations regarding certain aspects of the proposal. In some cases, proposal revisions may even be invited. The question then becomes, “What purpose does the responsiveness concept serve in a request for proposal?”

Unlike competitive sealed bidding, in RFPs proposal contents are not disclosed at a public proposal “opening.” As a result, withdrawals of proposals at opening and other anticompetitive behavior seldom occur. Given the possibility that proposals may be discussed or even revised, should black-and-white concepts of responsiveness be applied the same way?

State laws vary in this regard. At one end of the spectrum, a New Jersey court proclaimed that a “non-conforming bid is no bid at all” in the context of a request for proposal for a statewide contract for furniture. [In re Jasper Seating Co., Inc., 967 A.2d 350 (N.J. 2009).]

In Jasper, the state solicited proposals for a state contract for non-modular office furniture. The solicitation required firm pricing for 18 months. The RFP stated that “stickers” showing price increases on previously published price lists were not acceptable. According to the RFP, only the most recent preprinted price list was acceptable.

Jasper submitted a proposal on two furniture lines, but pricing deviated from RFP instructions. The proposal included Jasper’s pre-printed list price catalogs, normally used for its commercial customers, which had stickers on the covers indicating that prices would increase by 4 percent on a specified date during the performance period. The state rejected Jasper’s proposal as nonconforming. Jasper protested, and when it received no administrative relief, Jasper sued.

The court upheld the agency’s determination that the bid was nonresponsive. The court applied sealed bid precedent and a materiality test to the question of whether the proposal was responsive at the time of submission. The court applied previous precedent and concluded that material deficiencies existing at the time of proposal submission could not be cured through clarifications. The Jasper court tested materiality of the nonconformity at the time of proposal submission, similar to sealed bid analysis.

The commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the other hand, has taken a different approach – a more liberal one and one closer to the federal rule. [Language Line Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 991 A.2d 383 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).] In federal procurement, for example, the term “acceptability” has been used to describe whether an offeror’s proposal complies with the request for proposals, a standard that permits considerable discretion.

In Language Line, Pennsylvania’s Department of General Services issued an RFP to procure statewide interpretation, translation and language authentication services for commonwealth executive agencies. Language Line submitted a proposal for the interpretation services.

The RFP stated that the commonwealth would limit discussions to offerors that “have submitted responsive proposals and … whose proposals the Issuing Office has determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award.” All proposals were deemed to be responsive. However, Language Line was not invited to submit a best and final offer (BAFO) because it had received no points for its disadvantaged business participation, a major evaluation factor. Language Line protested and, when the protest was denied, filed suit.

One of Language Line’s claims was that the successful awardee’s proposal had not met several mandatory requirements. Language Line alleged that the awardee’s proposed program manager did not have the required minimum experience, and the awardee’s proposal failed to identify its customer service personnel or demonstrate that they had the required experience. The court upheld the competitive range process, found the competitive range determination to be a reasonable exercise of discretion, and approved the evaluation. With respect to the claim of nonresponsiveness, the court stated, “there were only two mandatory responsiveness requirements in the RFP at issue – timeliness of receipt and proper signature.”

In Pennsylvania, the procurement code language is very close to that used in the American Bar Association’s Model Procurement Code, which is patterned after federal procurement practice. Application of the federal analysis to these issues likely would have been closer to the Pennsylvania court rationale. Where an RFP contemplates clarification discussions and even proposal revisions, a proposal may be considered acceptable for proceeding to evaluation if the proposal would not require significant revision (e.g., a substantial rewrite) to meet requirements. Of course, the nature of the deficiencies could be considered in the evaluation and might preclude consideration of the proposal as one in the competitive range or inclusion on the “short list.”

There are lessons here for both governments and vendors. Companies should exercise caution when parsing solicitation instructions and strategizing about how to address requirements. With terms and conditions, in particular, governments may take different approaches regarding whether a proposal is “responsive” if a proposal includes alternative pricing approaches, limitation of liability provisions, modified intellectual property clauses or even common warranty disclaimers.

There may be better alternatives to simply taking exceptions to solicitation terms. Early market research communications with procurement personnel can convey industry concerns with terms and conditions. The typical question-and-answer period in a solicitation can be used to gauge whether supplemental or revised provisions are simply discouraged or – worse – disqualifying.

Even in jurisdictions that apply a more liberal acceptability standard to proposals, an offeror may not get an opportunity to discuss or revise its proposal. A proposal may be considered acceptable (and not be rejected) but still contain exceptions that are less favorable compared to another offeror’s proposal submitted strictly in accordance with RFP instructions. In short, an offeror may not get a chance to fix a problem with its proposal.

Agencies should use care in application of responsiveness rules. Buffington and Flynn highlight the harsh consequences on bidders and agencies when bids are rejected. In RFPs, the consequences can be even more significant because the stakes in lost business are often higher, and companies expend considerable time and effort in assembling teams to develop proposals.

While individual statutes and ordinances may limit flexibility, some governments permit (but discourage) exceptions to terms and conditions. The solicitation instructions should state explicitly how exceptions will be treated. And however an agency deals with the issue of exceptions and responsiveness, similarly situated companies should be treated equally.

Sometimes very good proposals include exceptions to RFP terms. Some exceptions make sense in the context of a given proposal approach. Intellectual property rights boilerplate, for example, may require some “tweaking” to make the clause work in the context of specific performance involving prime contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. These clarifications often do not involve substantial rewrites of boilerplate. But RFP language that absolutely precludes the possibility of discussing these kinds of issues may close the door on the opportunity.

Procurement professionals should discuss this issue with their legal counsel and have an approach to these issues. Do proposal deviations have to be treated as a responsiveness issue in your jurisdiction? Can exceptions to terms and conditions at least be considered and evaluated? Answers to these questions are important to governments and industry.

About the author

Richard Pennington, CPPO, C.P.M., J.D., LL.M. is an NIGP Individual Member. He served as an assistant attorney general (procurement and contract law and litigation) and State Purchasing Director for the State of Colorado.

Tags: Procurement

Related


  • Will digital transformation of city procurement hold up beyond the pandemic?
    Now is the time for procurement to re-evaluate the free or co-opted tools that enabled service delivery when the pandemic first began and invest in the digital tools that will help streamline RFP evaluation, foster stakeholder collaboration, and maintain compliance during the pandemic and beyond
  • The issue of POs
    A very common term in our field is PO, and by that we mean a purchase order. If we take a look at the official definition from the NIGP Dictionary of Procurement Terms we see the following: A purchaser’s written document to a vendor formalizing all the terms and conditions of a proposed transaction, such […]
  • Heroic: Massachusetts’ procurement response to the pandemic crisis
    Perhaps the most important lesson that a purchasing professional can learn from the Massachusetts experience is that leadership is about celebrating your teammates’ successes rather than your own
  • Demonstrating the value of procurement: A call to action
    Today’s public sector agencies are facing fiscal constraints unlike anything experienced in decades. As a result, agencies are taking a hard look at how taxpayer-generated funds are allocated across the organization and examining the value derived from every organizational unit. The current economic reality is both an opportunity and a call to action to demonstrate […]

Leave a comment Cancel reply

-or-

Log in with your American City and County account

Alternatively, post a comment by completing the form below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

  • Certification, your pathway to success
  • Air purifiers can improve indoor air quality as buildings re-open
  • If there were ever a time for procurement to be more strategic, it’s now
  • Resilience matters: The pandemic and procurement

White papers


How a unified HR system helps one public safety organization manage crews, payroll, and more in a single platform

7th January 2021

Your Roadmap to COVID-19 Funding

18th December 2020

The One Where Everyone Wins: A Mutually Beneficial Contracting Method

10th December 2020
view all

Events


PODCAST


Young Leaders Episode 4 – Cyril Jefferson – City Councilman, High Point, North Carolina

13th October 2020

Young Leaders Episode 3 – Shannon Hardin – City Council President, Columbus, Ohio

27th July 2020

Young Leaders Episode 2 – Christian Williams – Development Services Planner, Goodyear, Ariz.

1st July 2020
view all

Twitter


AmerCityCounty

The latest episode The Young Leaders Podcast focuses on Cyril Jefferson. Cyril is the youngest African American to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

27th October 2020
AmerCityCounty

Hillsboro, Oregon is pioneering a new #renewableenergy generation technology through a partnership with… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

27th October 2020
AmerCityCounty

The impact of the #COVID19 pandemic on #telework was swift and profound. Now, the big question is whether – and to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

26th October 2020
AmerCityCounty

Get ready for the can't-miss webinar on how to kickstart your efficiency improvement plan with Luke Anderson of… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

26th October 2020
AmerCityCounty

Among all states headed into the 2020 general election, which ones have voting populations that are the most demogr… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

26th October 2020
AmerCityCounty

We want to hear from you! Share your thoughts in our readership survey to help us shape future content so that we c… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

23rd October 2020
AmerCityCounty

See how cities different approaches to distribute masks in their communities >> spr.ly/6010GAPLa

23rd October 2020
AmerCityCounty

While #facialrecognition is a powerful tool that can improve law enforcement efficiency, that doesn’t necessarily t… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

23rd October 2020

Newsletters

Sign up for American City & County’s newsletters to receive regular news and information updates about local governments.

Resale Insights Dashboard

The Resale Insights Dashboard provides model-level data for the entire used equipment market to help you save time and money.

Municipal Cost Index

Updated monthly since 1978, our exclusive Municipal Cost Index shows the effects of inflation on the cost of providing municipal services

Media Kit and Advertising

Want to reach our digital audience? Learn more here.

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • IWCE’s Urgent Communications
  • IWCE Expo

WORKING WITH US

  • About Us
  • Contact Us

FOLLOW American City and County ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookies Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2021 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.
This website uses cookies, including third party ones, to allow for analysis of how people use our website in order to improve your experience and our services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of such cookies. Click here for more information on our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.
X