Opinion ID: 2547960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Despite A Flawed Invitation For Bids, Fieldturf Failed To Follow Proper Objection Procedures

Text: Although the Boise State University Turf Replacement invitation for bids and bidding instructions were flawed from the outset, Fieldturf failed to follow the objection procedures. DPW's actions during the bidding process are limited by statute. First, DPW must publish an invitation for bids that includes a project description and all contractual terms and conditions applicable to the public works. I.C. § 67-5711C(2) All construction contracts for public works shall be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder ..., after all bids are received by DPW. Id. Fieldturf claims it was entitled to the turf contract because it was the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. However, DPW sent a letter to Fieldturf stating: [y]our bid for the above project has been determined to be nonresponsive due to failure to submit bids for two alternatives. The district court agreed with DPW's action by ruling Fieldturf's failure to provide prices for Alternatives Four and Five deviated from the bid invitation and caused the Plaintiff's bid to be unresponsive. But, the bidding instructions were drafted in a manner so that SRI was the only possible bidder who could comply with DPW's primary proposal and all five Alternatives. In other words, DPW sought a sole source procurement because only one vendor could comply with DPW's project specifications. See I.C. § 67-5733(1)(d); I.C. § 67-5720(2). The bidding instructions required that the Bidder shall carefully study and compare the Bidding Documents with each other ... and shall at once report to the Architect errors, inconsistencies or ambiguities discovered. Bidders ... requiring clarification or interpretation of the Bidding documents shall make a written request which shall reach the Architect at least seven days prior to the date for receipt of Bids. Because the bidding instructions were flawed and amounted to a sole source procurement, Fieldturf should have objected to the Architect seven days prior to the receipt of the bids. Instead, Fieldturf sent a letter to DPW attached to its Proposed Bid stating: We would like at this point, to explain the reason we have not included Alternative 4 (Elastic layer shock pad) to our bid. Field Turf is designed in such a way that a shock pad is not required with our product. However, we are aware that the elastic shock pad is an integral part of the systems offered by our competitors and cannot be excluded from the installation of their product at Boise. Field Turf's patented silica and rubber infill precludes the use of secondary yarn, therefore, we have not submitted a price for Alternate 5. The letter evinces that Fieldturf was on notice that it could not comply entirely with the bid instructions and that the bid instructions were flawed. Therefore, Fieldturf should have followed the proper objection procedures by making a written request or complaint to the Architect at least seven days prior to the date for receipt of Bids instead of waiting to explain itself in a letter attached to its Proposed Bid. In addition to the requirement that Fieldturf give notice to the Architect which it neglected to do, I.C. § 67-5733 provides a statutory appeal process that Fieldturf also failed to follow. Section 67-5733(1)(a) states that prior to the submission of bids, [t]here shall be, beginning with the day of receipt of notice, a period of not more than ten (10) working days in which any vendor qualified and able to sell or supply the items to be acquired, may notify in writing the administrator of the division of purchasing of his intention to challenge the specifications and shall specifically state the exact nature of his challenge. I.C. § 67-5733(1)(a). Section 67-5733(1)(b) requires that after the submission of bids, [t]here shall be, ... following receipt of notice of rejection ... in which a bidder whose bid was found nonresponsive may appeal such decision to the director of the department of administration. I.C. § 67-5733(1)(b). Additionally, after a bid is considered but deemed to not be the lowest responsible bid, a bidder may apply to the director of the department of administration for appointment of a determinations officer. I.C. § 67-5733(1)(c). Fieldturf failed to follow these appeals procedures; instead, Fieldturf attached an explanatory letter to its Proposed Bid and then later filed suit following DPW's determination that Fieldturf's bid was nonresponsive. In conclusion, DPW's invitation for bids and bidding instructions were flawed. Nevertheless, this Court holds Fieldturf waived its right to contest the process by failing to follow both procedures for contesting errors, inconsistencies, and ambiguities within the bidding documents and by failing to follow the statutory appeal process to challenge the bid documents or DPW's determination.