Opinion ID: 2632935
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lakloey Is Entitled to a Hearing on the Merits.

Text: In accordance with the general procurement code, UAF awards contracts to the lowest responsive bidder whose bid conforms in all material respects to the requirements and criteria set out in the invitation to bid. [18] Similarly, the University of Alaska Procurement Manual maintains that a bid's nonconformity does not render that bid non-responsive when the effect on price, quantity, quality or delivery is negligible and is determined by the procurement officer to be a minor informality. [19] We have previously explained that a bidder's nonconformity is material under the general procurement code if it gave that bidder a substantial advantage over conforming bidders. [20] UAF agrees that this is also the proper test with regard to whether a bidder's nonconformity is negligible under the University's guidelines. [21] As we have previously explained, we . . . review an agency's determination of [a bidder's] responsiveness under the reasonable basis standard. [22] At the heart of Lakloey's protest lies the contention that Amendment No. 1 represented a material amendment and worked a material change to the IFB. Underlying this central contention is Lakloey's factual assertion that the amendment establishe[d] feed water [and other technical] requirements which exceed[ed] the capabilities of the specific brand name model identified in the initial IFB. As a result, Lakloey argues, U.S. Filter's eventual offer of the brand name model specified in the original IFB did not meet Amendment No. 1's requirements and was therefore not responsive and should not have been awarded the contract. [23] The final decision issued by UAF's hearing officer maintained that [t]he amendment added or clarified specifications that other brands or models would have to comply with, but it did not affect any bids for the exact model specified [in the IFB], which already met those specifications. Based upon this premise, the decision reasoned that Amendment No. 1 created no additional burden for U.S. Filter because it submitted a bid for the exact model specified. Therefore, the decision concluded, U.S. Filter's failure to acknowledge the amendment did not give it any advantage under the circumstances. Taken in isolation, these portions of the decision could be read as holding that Lakloey's factual assertions were simply untruethat Amendment No. 1 did not in fact require specifications for non-brand name models that significantly exceeded the capabilities of the brand name model specified in the original IFB. However, throughout the course of the administrative process below, the hearing officer repeatedly asserted that Lakloey's protest did not require the resolution of any disputed factual issues, and the final decision once again reiterated that Lakloey's appeal involved no genuine issues of material fact. [24] As a result, the hearing officer's decision can only be understood as holding the following: even assuming the truth of Lakloey's factual assertions about Amendment No. 1, that amendment did not as a matter of law affect bids for the brand name model specified in the original IFB. But the original IFB noted that its identification of a brand name model was merely a shorthand method of describing the standard of quality, performance and characteristics [that UAF] desired. Amendment No. 1 subsequently provided additional information about the technical specifications that UAF desired. Under standard contract law and the terms of the original IFB itself, [25] it is the last-in-time offer that prevails. In this case, it was Amendment No. 1 that was last-in-time, and that amendment and its specifications were therefore, as a matter of law, the proper benchmark against which to measure each of the bidders' responsiveness. If Lakloey is correct that Amendment No. 1 required specifications that exceeded the capabilities of the brand name model specified in the original IFB, then U.S. Filter's bid for the brand name model may not have conformed with UAF's requirements and specifications, and that nonconformity may have provided U.S. Filter with a substantial advantage over other bidders. In the end then, Lakloey's protest presents two questions: (1) did Amendment No. 1 contain technical specifications that exceeded the brand name model's specifications, and, if so, (2) were these technical specifications so significantly different from the brand name model's specifications as to give U.S. Filter a substantial advantage over bidders who conformed with the amendment. Both of these questions implicate technical factual issues, [26] and Lakloey is therefore entitled to a hearing under the general procurement code and the University's own regulations. [27] Consequently, we remand this case to UAF. [28] Because we do not reach the merits of Lakloey's challenge, we do not decide whether Lakloey is entitled to its bid preparation costs.