Opinion ID: 1966598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Twenty-Four-Hour Nurse Line Fee

Text: Fifth, the trial justice found that after both companies submitted their best and final offers, United was asked to modify its bid to remove a twenty-four-hour nurse line fee of $0.99 PEPM that was added to the best and final offer. The twenty-four-hour nurse line had been included at no additional cost in United's original proposal. According to the State, the request was made simply to clarify the bid. The trial justice found, however, that the best and final offer was clear and that Anderson's subsequent e-mail to United was a suggestion that it modify its bid to make it more attractive. Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial justice misconceived material evidence and that the State's communication with United was, in fact, a request for clarification, permitted by the act, and indeed an obligation of public officials. We once again are reminded that in situations in which the awarding authority's and trial justice's interpretations vary, the statutorily required presumption that the awarding authority's decision is correct ordinarily should supersede the deference we must pay to the trial justice's finding. We turn to H.V. Collins Co., 696 A.2d at 300, for guidance once more. In that case the trial justice found that the evaluation of bids by the school committee was subjective, unfair, and included matters outside the criteria in the RFP. Id. She further surmised that awarding the contract to Gilbane violated [the statute] and    the [town] charter. Id. In this case, the trial justice concluded that [i]n violation of the applicable statutory scheme and departmental regulations, the State permitted United to modify its bid after the company submitted its `best and final' offer. With the lame excuse that the offer required clarification, [the State] contacted United after receiving its `best and final' bid and gave the company the opportunity to remove an additional charge and lower its quoted rates. In H.V. Collins Co., 696 A.2d at 305, we concluded that the trial justice erred in finding a palpable abuse of discretion in the school committee's conduct, and we now conclude the trial justice in this case committed the same error. After determining that it could not afford to proceed with either of the bids submitted, the State asked the parties to submit best and final offers. It defies logic that United, which was one of only two companies in the running for this contract and which had complied overall with every step of the bid process, suddenly would increase its price in the last stage of bidding after the State had determined it could not afford the original bids submitted. Seeing an additional $0.99 PEPM added to the administrative fees previously quoted understandably raised some eyebrows at the department. Thus, it logically followed that Anderson, who was overseeing the bid process, would send a request for clarification. His e-mail was short and to the point, stating: In the original ASO fee submission, 24-hour Nurseline services were included in the base ASO fee (the original submission noted that this represented a $0.99 PEPM value). In the `Best and Final' submission, 24-hour nurseline services are excluded from the base ASO fee and a charge of $0.99 PEPM is indicated. Please confirm that the 24-hour nurseline services are included in the `Best and Final' base ASO fee and no additional fee applies. The trial justice determined that Anderson's e-mail to United, seeking a so-called clarification as to the differences between its initial bid and its `best and final' offer, was nothing more than a suggestion to the offeror that United reconsider the additional fee and remove it. We hold that the trial justice erroneously found a palpable abuse of discretion in this fifth issue. We are satisfied that the State's follow-up question to United was simply a request for clarification, which implicitly is permitted under the act. We conclude, therefore, that the trial justice misconceived the evidence and wrongly characterized the communications. Indeed, with so many taxpayer dollars at stake it seems to this Court that it would have been irresponsible for the State not to seek clarification.