Labels and Tags

Accountability (69) Adequate documentation (6) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (15) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (13) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (29) Competitive position (2) Compliance (33) Conflict of interest (31) Contract administration (25) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (2) Contractor responsibility (19) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (34) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (35) Effective procurement management (3) Effective specifications (36) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (14) Frivolous protest (1) Good governance (8) Governmental functions (26) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (12) Integrity of system (29) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (7) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (32) Mistakes (4) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (33) Past performance (12) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (48) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (93) Principles of procurement (24) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (78) Procurement ethics (19) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (16) Procurement procedures (30) Procurement reform (63) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (2) Protest - timing (12) Protests - general (37) Purposes and policies of procurement (10) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (4) Responsiveness (13) Restrictive specifications (5) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (47) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (2) Standards of review (2) Standing (6) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (10) The subject matter of procurement (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (60) Uniformity (6) Unsolicited proposals (2)

Monday, August 15, 2016

Need to post a $2.3 million bond in order to file a bid protest??

Fight over Miami Dade College’s cultural center takes more legal twists
a development team led by art dealer Gary Nader filed an official protest Friday challenging a recommendation that Miami Dade College’s board of trustees partner with condo king Related Group on a project to build a cultural center and residential towers downtown, perhaps foreshadowing a long legal battle over the project.

Nader’s attorneys notified the college three weeks ago of their plans to protest a college committee’s decision to score Related Group the highest among three competitors, including Nader. But unexpectedly, Friday’s challenge came after weeks of legal wrangling over the price of a required protest bond and public records related to an internal college investigation.

Last month, Nader + Museu LLP fended off the college’s arguments that the development team would need to post a $2.3 million bond in order to file a bid protest. A Miami-Dade judge allowed Nader’s team to move forward, at least temporarily, with the posting of a $100,000 injunction bond. Then on Thursday, Judge Monica Gordo rejected the college’s request to dissolve the emergency injunction
Hmmmm. The headline to this story may have been a smidgen misleading. This case, which may have begun as a protest, made its way to court where an injunction was sought. Evidently, there was no continuing automatic or other administrative stay in place.

It is common practice, when seeking injunctive relief, for a court to require posting of a bond to compensate a defendant for delay damages IF the plaintiff does not prevail on its underlying claim for damages or relief. Characterizing such a bond as a "protest bond" is perhaps misleading.

But the mere thought of a $2.3 million, let alone a $100,000 bond requirement to lodge a bid protest certainly woke me up this morning.

No comments: