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, January 30, 2017

It takes one to know one: Evaluating the evaluators

Campground manager wins bid protest
The county on Friday upheld a bid protest by the current manager of the Chassahowitzka River Campground, ruling that scorers did not have the necessary expertise to judge the bids adequately. Moore & Moore Realty Inc. of Homosassa, which has had the campground contract the past five years, filed the protest after the county had recommended the contract instead be awarded to a Cape Canaveral company.

In his response to Moore’s bid protest, Assistant County Administrator Jeff Rogers acknowledged that the scoring process was flawed and the county did not assign experts to score the four bidders. “I do believe the county could have had county staff and/or external staff that might have had more interaction with the daily operation of the campground or had more knowledge of the operation of a campground involved in the scoring,” Rogers wrote.

Moore and Chassahowitzka residents who supported the current contract took particular dispute with Phillips, who along with two other county staffers scored the bids in seven areas. Phillips gave Moore & Moore low scores in all but one category, and all three gave high scores to the eventual winning bidder, Camp Leisure.

Rogers wrote that staffers who should have been involved in the scoring could not participate because of a conflict of interest with one of the bidders. Still, he said county regulations require bids be reviewed and scored by individuals with knowledge or expertise of the service or commodity being procured. He said the county could have sought outside expertise to assist with the bid scoring.

The company, in its bid protest, said the county should never had sought proposals in the first place. Company president Elaine Moore said that both the prior Parks and Recreation director and Tobey Phillips, director of the Department of Community Services, assured her in July 2016 that the county planned to give her a five-year contract extension. She said the only reason the county sent the contract out to bid is because a Hudson company inquired about the campground in October.

In his response to Moore’s bid protest, Assistant County Administrator Jeff Rogers did not find fault in the county seeking new bids.

No comments: