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


Article

Reader Response: Thoughts on  “Responsive and Responsible”

Reader Response: Thoughts on “Responsive and Responsible”

  • Written by William Curry
  • 16th October 2018

Lisa Premo’s excellent article “Language Matters: Distinguishing Between Responsive and Responsible” inspired me to contribute additional points to consider regarding use of the terms “responsive” and “responsible.” During the latest iteration of my research into best practices in state and local government procurement, I added two best practices titled “Define ‘responsive proposal’ in RFP” and “Define ‘responsible contractor’ in RFP.”

The best practices were restricted to RFPs, for this research project, because the best practices were developed for inclusion in the second edition of my book, “Contracting for Services in State and Local Government Agencies” and solicitations for service contracts are made, by most state and local government agencies, through RFPs and not IFBs. If the book addressed IFBs, as well as RFPs, the best practices would have been titled “Define ‘responsive Bid/Proposal’ in solicitation” and “Define ‘responsible contractor’ in solicitation.”

The reason for including the definitions for “responsive” and “responsible” in solicitations is that most solicitations include a statement like, “the contract will be awarded to the responsible contractor that submits the lowest priced responsive bid,” or “the contract will be awarded to the responsible contractor that submits the best value responsive proposal.” If responsible and responsive are not defined in the solicitation and a contractor with the lowest priced bid or best value proposal is eliminated from the competition due to not being responsible or not submitting a responsive bid/proposal, a protest may be filed.

The reason a protest might be filed in either of these instances is that the aggrieved contractor may have a definition for one or both of these terms that differs from the government’s definition. When eliminating a business entity or individual for a nonresponsive bid/proposal or for not being responsible, the government should ensure that the reason given for such contractor’s elimination clearly meets the government’s “responsive” and “responsible” definition(s) as stated in the solicitation. Adhering to this practice should discourage protests and simplify the defense against those protests that were not discouraged.

The definition in the NIGP Dictionary of Procurement Terms for “Responsive Bid/Proposal” is exactly what I would recommend for inclusion in the solicitation. With respect to the definition for “Responsible Bidder/Proposer,” however, I would add a sentence regarding the prospective contractor’s integrity. The statement regarding the prospective contractor’s integrity would be along the line of “Responsible bidders/proposers shall not have been convicted of, or pled guilty to, crimes involving procurement fraud or damage to the environment during the previous five years and shall not currently be included on any list of debarred or suspended business entities or individuals.” The definitions to be included in the solicitation, therefore, include the following which are identical to the NIGP definitions except for the final sentence in the “Responsible Bidder/Proposer” definition:

“Responsive Bid/Proposal: A bid or proposal that fully conforms in all material respect to the Invitation for Bids (IFB)/Request for Proposals (RFP) and all its requirements, including all form and substance.”

“Responsible Bidder/Proposer: A business entity or individual who has the capability and financial and technical capacity to perform the requirements of the solicitation and subsequent contract. Responsible bidders/proposers shall not have been convicted of, or pled guilty to, crimes involving procurement fraud or damage to the environment during the previous five years and shall not currently be included on any list of debarred or suspended business entities or individuals.”

While the disqualification of contractors for not being responsible is normally identical when either an RFP or IFB is used as the solicitation document, most states and local government agencies approach responsiveness differently for bids and for proposals. When bids do not meet the government’s definition for responsiveness, such bids are normally rejected summarily. When proposals do not meet the government’s definition for responsiveness, however, the government normally offers the prospective contractor an opportunity to make minor adjustments to its proposal that will render it responsive. For example, if a bid includes a delivery date that is beyond the required delivery date in the IFB, the bid is normally rejected summarily. If, however, the proposed delivery date is beyond the stated delivery date in the RFP, the prospective contractor is normally offered an opportunity to modify its proposed delivery date to make its proposal responsive.

Government agencies that make this distinction in the treatment of nonresponsive bids versus nonresponsive proposals are urged to include their treatment of nonresponsive bids in response to an IFB and their treatment of nonresponsive proposals in response to an RFP in their solicitations. The statement in IFBs might read “bids that the agency deems to be nonresponsive shall be summarily rejected,” while the statement in RFPs might read, “The agency may offer prospective contractors an opportunity to make minor adjustments to nonresponsive proposals to render them responsive.”

William Curry, CPCM, NCMA has over 45 years of experience in federal, state and local government contracting. He’s also the author of “Contracting for Services in State and Local Government Agencies.”

Tags: Procurement Procurement Article

Related


  • Cooperative agreements and other tools can help lean-staffed procurement squads
    In 2021, county budgets are fairly tight, says John D. Tigert, purchasing services manager in Dorchester County, S.C.“Procurement budgets are largely staying the same, with outliers of course, depending on how the organization collects revenue and to what degree that revenue collection was impacted by COVID-19. Most procurement departments tend to run a very lean […]
  • Tennessee purchasing crew fine-tunes its pandemic response
    When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the two-person procurement team at Knoxville’s (Tenn.) Community Development Corp. (KCDC) leaped into action, says Terry McKee, IT and procurement director. “We immediately began seeking personal protective equipment (PPE) and supplies, which is not something that we have needed much of in the past. We also became the one open […]
  • New American City & County survey identifies biggest problems facing public procurement departments in pandemic
    A new, ongoing public procurement survey from American City & County and Bonfire shows that over half of surveyed procurement departments are struggling with their supply chains during the pandemic. So far, 66.67 percent of respondents have said that navigating supply chain shortages was a point of strain in their procurement processes in the pandemic. […]
  • Lessons from the pandemic: Emergency sourcing of lifesaving equipment
    Being able to conceive and implement new procurement models in times of crisis requires resourcefulness, tenacity and teamwork.

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

  • Procurement Ponderable: Dealing with anxiety and depression
  • What does it really mean to be “green” from a public procurement perspective?
  • What tune will you play?
  • COVID-19 and energy: The critical need for expert advice

White papers


Discover How Public Sector Officials are Monitoring and Managing Overtime in This New White Paper

22nd February 2021

How to Assemble a Successful Government Grant Proposal

5th February 2021

The Rise of Procurement’s Next Normal

5th February 2021
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

2020 Crown Communities winner: Harris County, Texas, Precinct 2’s ACCESS2HEALTH SmartPod dlvr.it/Rtm06B

1st March 2021
AmerCityCounty

How technology can ensure equitable access to the COVID-19 vaccine dlvr.it/RtlLNC

1st March 2021
AmerCityCounty

American City & County’s 2020 Exemplary Public Servant of the Year Award dlvr.it/RtZbX2

26th February 2021
AmerCityCounty

American City & County’s 2020 Crown Communities Awards dlvr.it/RtZbVz

26th February 2021
AmerCityCounty

2020 Crown Communities Awards winner: Rock Hill, S.C.’s My Ride dlvr.it/RtZSFp

26th February 2021
AmerCityCounty

Three communities hosting Augmented Reality Developer Challenge competitions dlvr.it/RtZ94D

26th February 2021
AmerCityCounty

Using data to improve emergency response resources dlvr.it/RtVSc0

25th February 2021
AmerCityCounty

How small cities are tackling lead service line replacement dlvr.it/RtV9G8

25th February 2021

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