Opinion ID: 1966598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Crossover Service Fees

Text: Finally, the trial justice found that, after the parties had submitted their best and final offers, Kennedy erroneously compared a quote submitted by Blue Cross that included so-called crossover services, which are incidental to the Medigap indemnity program, to a quote United submitted that did not include the same services. According to the trial justice, to defeat Blue Cross's bid protest, Kennedy contacted United after tentatively awarding it the contract and had it modify its bid to include the crossover services, free of charge. The State asserts that the RFP did not request a quote for crossover service fees and that it was unfamiliar with what crossover services were until Blue Cross brought this to its attention. Blue Cross argues that crossover services were implicitly part of the RFP because Blue Cross had been supplying the same to the State for several years through its existing contract and that the RFP applied to all the services currently being offered. United argues that crossover services were not part of the RFP and that it does not violate the act for a bidder to gratuitously offer additional services to the State after the contract has been awarded. The trial justice concluded that United's offer to provide crossover services was the result of off-the-record conversations between Kennedy and United, made for the sole purpose of defeating [Blue Cross's] anticipated bid protest and sustaining the contract award to United. Kennedy's conduct, in this regard, rose to the level of bad faith. We note that just as Blue Cross was careful in its briefs not to suggest that the State's conduct rose to the level of bad faith, so too does the trial justice, although she comes close to such a finding by labeling the conduct of Hewitt's employee, Kennedy, bad faith. What the trial justice interpreted as bad faith conduct on Kennedy's part also may be seen as mere ineptitude due to his failure to read the act and comply with its every requirement, a situation which raises its own concern. Any shortcomings on Kennedy's part was not fatal to the bid process. The RFP did not request the parties to provide crossover services. Although it is entirely improper for the State to conduct private conversations about matters concerned in the RFP with a bidder while the bid process is in progress, nothing prevents a bidder from offering to provide a gratuitous service to the State that was not mentioned in the RFP. See Model Procurement Code § 3-202(6) cmt. (8) (2000). Therefore, we conclude that the trial justice erred in her final ruling that a wrongful act occurred and, we reverse that determination. There was no palpable abuse of discretion.