2006-01-09_Kidde_Fire_Trainers_v_Dept_of_Finance_Findings_of_Fact_conclusions_of_Law_and_Decision

Home

. . . .................. . . . . 10. On October 28, 2005, Respondent denied Petitioner's protest, as Petitioner's bid was non-responsive at the time of bid opening. 11. In a letter dated November 3, 2005, Petitioner stated that it received redacted and/or other variations of the offers made by Draeger, Pro-Safe and Fireblast on that date. 12. On November 7, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for hearing with respect to Respondent's denial of Petitioner's protest. 13. By a letter dated November 11, 2005, Petitioner itemized what it determined to be material exceptions taken by Draeger, and requested that Respondent rescind the Notice of Award to Draeger and award the contract to Petitioner. 14. By a letter dated November 15, 2005, Respondent informed Petitioner that it would discuss Petitioner's allegations with Draeger and determine whether or not they are material and acceptable under Special Provisions 11 and 13, but that it still considered Petitioner's offer to be non-responsive and therefore, was unable to comply with Petitioner's request that it be awarded the contract. 15. By a letter dated November 22, 2005, Petitioner filed a second protest which alleged that Draeger's submission included four material specification exceptions which mandated immediate termination of the Notice of Award to Draeger, and that Draeger's bid contained an exception to the damages terms and conditions. Petitioner requested that the Notice of Award to Draeger be rescinded and that it be awarded the contract as the lowest responsible offeror. 15. On November 23, 2005, Respondent agreed to allow Petitioner to file a second protest and that it would be consolidated for hearing in PCH-2005-3. Respondent agreed that it would not object to the timeliness of the pretest or the procedural aspects of the protest, including the form or manner of the submission. IIL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Petitioner argued that it was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and its bid should not have been rejected as non-responsive because the issue of liquidated damages was not a material issue. Petitioner also filed a second protest regarding alleged deficiencies in the bid submitted by Draeger. Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the - 4 -