| |
 |
| Decision Summary BP-A027: Appeal filed by the joint venture of Western Equipment, Inc. and DRC Pacific, Inc. pertaining to the construction of the Marpi Solid Waste Facility on Saipan under ITB No. DPW00-IFB-049 Related decision: BP-A027.1: request for reconsideration of decision filed by P&S (November 9, 2001) - This decision is on the appeal filed by the joint venture of Western Equipment, Inc. and DRC Pacific, Inc. (WEI/DRC) from the denial of its protest by the Division of Procurement and Supply (P&S) Director pertaining to the construction of the Marpi Solid Waste Facility (Landfill Project) on Saipan under Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. DPW00-IFB-049. In its appeal, WEI/DRC (1) asserts that the Department of Public Works (DPW) Division of Solid Waste Management (DSWM) Program Manager was biased against WEI/DRC and that at least an appearance of impropriety was created by his actions, and (2) questions whether Pacific Drilling, Ltd. (PDL) is capable of performing its part of the project and, if not, whether PDL's participation qualifies the Dick Pacific Construction/Pacific Drilling, Ltd. (DPC/PDL) joint venture for the local bidder preference. WEI/DRC seeks to overturn the notice of intent to award the project to DPC/PDL to protect the integrity of the procurement process and avoid injustice to WEI/DRC. The Public Auditor grants the appeal in part. Based on our evaluation, we conclude that there is enough evidence of ill will or animosity between the DSWM Program Manager and DRC to question his participation in the evaluation of PDL's responsibility. In addition, it appears from the record that not all the appropriate factors under CNMI-PR Section 7-102(3) were considered in determining DPC/PDL's local preference status. Accordingly, the determination of DPC/PDL's responsibility and local bidder preference is remanded back to P&S with instructions as set forth in OPA's recommendations. BP-A027.1: Request for reconsideration of decision filed by P&S (November 28, 2001) - On November 19, 2001, the Division of Procurement & Supply (P&S) Director filed with OPA a request for reconsideration of OPA's appeal decision. The P&S Director requested that OPA rescind its remand of the re-evaluation, and instead assume complete and direct control of the decision-making process for this appeal. OPA denied the request stating that under CNMI-PR Section 6-103(1), OPA has the limited responsibility of determining that a solicitation or proposed award is not in violation of law or regulation. OPA's role under the CNMI-PR is to adjudicate procurement appeals and render decisions thereon. OPA's function, therefore, is limited to weighing the issues raised in the appeal and determining the merits thereof. Under CNMI-PR Section 3-301, the evaluation of bidder/offeror responsibility is vested in the P&S Director.
|
