2006-01-09_Kidde_Fire_Trainers_v_Dept_of_Finance_Findings_of_Fact_conclusions_of_Law_and_Decision

Home

also proper. The argument that Petitioner may be awarded the contract because the IFB only required that the award be to the lowest responsible bidder is rejected because the law requires that a competitive sealed bid., which IFB No. 2190 was, be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. See, HRS § 103D-302. Petitioner's contention that the solicitation did not specify a delivery time is untimely as protests based upon the content of the solicitation cannot be considered unless it is submitted in w=riting prior to the date set for the receipt of offers. See, HRS § 103D-701. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the other arguments cited in its October 21, 2005 ,protest. Petitioner also contended that Respondent's award of the contract to Draeger was improper. However, Petitioner does not have standing to contest Respondent's award of the contract to Draeger because Petitioner's bid was properly rejected as non-responsive. As such, Petitioner has no realistic expectation of being awarded the contract and is not "aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of the contract." See, Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 103D-701(a), Hawaii Newspaper Agency, et al. v. State Dept. of Accounting and General Services, et al. and Milici Valenti Ng Pack v. State Dept, of Accounting and General Services, et al., PCH-99-2 and PCH-99-3 (consolidated) (April 16, 1999). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address Petitioner's contentions that Draeger's hid was unresponsive to the IFB. However, even if Petitioner was found to have standing to contest the award of the contract to Draeger, pursuant to HRS § 10313-701(a), Petitioner's protest was untimely as it was not made within five working days after October 18, 2005, when the Notice of Award was posted, or five working days after November 3, 2005 (the date Petitioner received a copy of Draeger's bid) when Petitioner knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to the protest. IV. DECISION Based on the foregoing considerations, the Hearings Officer finds and concludes that Petitioner was not a responsive bidder and accordingly, that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent's rejection of its bid was improper and not in 1 Although Respondent agreed to allow Petitioner to file the secomi protest and not object to the timeliness of the protest, this is a jurisdictional matter which may be raised sua sponte by the Hearings Officer, See, Hawaii Newspaper Agency and Mlici Valenti Ng Pack,supra, . 6 .