New Search
FEB -29 -2000 08:37 SD4J FACILITIES MANAGMENT 1 541 687 3686 P.09/24 <br /> February 23, 2000 <br /> Page 5 <br /> ES &G Bones SW Recreational <br /> A B C D A B C D A B C D <br /> Mfg Exp 10 10 9 8 8 6 9 6 8 3 8.3 3 <br /> Average 9.25 7.25 557 <br /> Thus, on that issue, ES &G was accorded two full points more on the average than was <br /> Bones. In the final analysis, ES &G's total points awarded by the Selection Committee averaged 85 <br /> while Bones' average total was 93 (note: no protest was made as to the selection criteria under OAR <br /> 137 -30 -050 or under 9.2 of the Supplementary Instructions entitled "Protest of Proposal" prior to the <br /> close of the solicitation). <br /> The section to which the protester refers is in the General Specifications section, 02790, <br /> under "Synthetic Turf," wherein under 1.04 it talks about "Quality Assurance ": <br /> "A. Manufacturer Qualifications: Manufacturer must have at least <br /> three years of experience in the design and manufacture of <br /> rubber or rubber /sand inftll athletic field systems with a <br /> record of successful in- service performance." <br /> From the disparate ratings it is apparent that the Committee considered and evaluated overall <br /> manufacturer's experience in relation to all of the specifications, including the many in <br /> Section 02790 and concluded that one manufacturer rated higher than the other and included that in <br /> their overall rating prior to rating Bones as "top rated." (If the protester was of the opinion that this <br /> section should have been in the selection criteria, it should have protested that section under 9.2 <br /> before its proposal was submitted.) <br /> The Board referred this matter to the Selection Committee for its specific expertise. Deciding <br /> whether a bid meets the technical terms of the RFP requires an exercise of judgment that is within <br /> the scope of School Districts' duties. The School District, in this instance, appointed a Selection <br /> Committee requiring specific expertise to follow through on very detailed selection criteria. The <br /> District therefore determined that based on the information before it that the proposer would meet <br /> the standards it required under "Manufacturer's Experience." It followed the criteria it said it would <br /> follow. Once a public agency has followed all applicable contracting procedures, and has received, <br /> opened and examined all responsive bids, then the agency must award the contract to the "lowest <br /> responsible bidder (ORS 279.029). This is the contractor who is "the lowest bidder who has <br /> substantially complied with all prescribed public bidding procedures and requirements and who has <br /> not been disqualified by the contracting agency under 279.037." In this instance, cost alone is not <br /> the outcome determinative because this is an evaluation and award following an agency's "Request <br /> for Proposals." However, a similar rationale applies in compelling the contracting agency to make <br />