Opinion ID: 1286550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Royal's Proposal

Text: Gunderson contends that Royal's proposal was not responsive to the terms and specifications of the RFP. Gunderson complains that Royal's successful bid proposed the use of end-dump containers while the RFP in Specification No. 2, Scope of Services stated: The coal must be delivered in bottom dump containers to enable dumping through a grill ... and into a grizzly located below the railroad tracks. Services shall be performed in strict accordance with these specifications, and all terms and conditions of the contract. Gunderson argues that the competition for the contract was not equal among the various trucking companies, since the rest of the bidders complied with the specifications in the RFP and submitted their bids based upon the use of bottom-dump containers. UAF concedes that the type of truck proposed by Royal, a self-unloading trailer that emptied through the rear by means of a conveyor belt, was not the type of trailer initially contemplated by the University. However, UAF points out that the reason for the bottom-dump trailer specification was that clearance in the University's facility did not allow raising a conventional end-dump trailer for unloading purposes. It is well settled that a public entity is required to reject bids which vary materially from the specifications set forth in the published request for proposal. McBirney & Assocs. v. State, 753 P.2d 1132, 1136 (Alaska 1988). We have previously held that [a] variance is considered material if it gives one bidder `a substantial advantage over other bidders and thereby restricts or stifles competition.' Id. (quoting Chris Berg, Inc., 680 P.2d. at 94). In this case, the purpose of the bottom-dump specification in the RFP was to allow adequate clearance for dumping at UAF's facility. In denying Gunderson's protest, the chief procurement officer concluded that the proposal by Royal contained only a minor variation on the theme established by the RFP  that is that coal may be delivered to the UAF Power Plant by means other than rail car. He based this conclusion on his finding that the size and capacity of the grizzly located in the coal handling facility does not restrict end dumping as proposed by Royal.... For purposes of this RFP they have proposed a method of delivery and off loading that appears viable and they will be held to the requirements for performance. We conclude that Gunderson has failed to show that Royal's proposed equipment was a material deviation from the RFP requirements. There was thus a reasonable basis for the University's action in accepting Royal's proposal under the RFP. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that such equipment gave Royal a substantial advantage over other bidders. In fact, the chief procurement officer's decision did not represent UAF's final action on this issue. Prior to awarding the contract to Royal, the University obtained confirmation that Royal was not making any exceptions to the specifications, including scope of services, paragraph 2. The contract was then awarded to Royal in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the RFP. Accordingly, Royal is using bottom-dump equipment in compliance with the RFP requirements, and any error by the chief procurement officer is harmless.
After evaluating the proposals received, UAF sent a form letter to those offerors within the competitive range for further consideration. This June 24, 1993 letter requested a confirmation of the price schedule from the original proposal and further informed these offerors that [a]s soon as the evaluation is completed you will be advised of the results. In addition, you are notified that additional clarification or information and a best and final offer may be requested at a later date. (Emphasis added.) Upon receipt of this letter, Royal amended its proposal by further reducing the price on its price schedule, without awaiting a request by UAF for a best and final offer. Gunderson argues that the University did not provide any of the other offerors an opportunity to make a best and final offer at a later date. Gunderson also contends that Royal's price reduction violated University PR & P 3-081. [7] As UAF points out, changes in price after the proposal deadline are expressly permitted under the University's competitive sealed proposals procedure. P-3-061(a) provides: The competitive sealed proposals method differs from competitive sealed bidding in two important ways. First, it permits discussions with competing offerors and changes in their proposals including price; and second, it allows comparative subjective evaluations to be made when determining acceptable proposals for negotiation and award of the contract. The ability of offerors to make price adjustments is further recognized under P-3-061(b): Under competitive sealed proposals, revisions in a proposal, including prices, may be made after proposals are opened. Furthermore, Royal's submission was not an untimely modification to the RFP but instead was a response to a letter requesting verification of its proposal. There is no support for Gunderson's assertion that he was not given the same opportunity to adjust his price as was given to the other proposers. [8] The University representative at the pre-proposal conference informed all of the potential proposers that the University had the right to obtain clarifications and enter into negotiations with the proposers after the proposal deadline. Gunderson was further advised in a letter that the alternative procedure of requesting best and final offers was optional. The chief procurement officer found that the University did not accept a late modification but had merely allowed a change in price expressly permitted by P-3-061(b). The chief procurement officer's decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion, and the decision has a reasonable basis in the law. [9]