Opinion ID: 1057889
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: School Board's Failure to Follow Requirements of Act

Text: PBM asserts the circuit court erred in sustaining the demurrer because its amended complaint adequately alleges the School Board failed to properly follow the requirements of the Act. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of facts alleged in pleadings, not the strength of proof. Glazebrook, 266 Va. at 554, 587 S.E.2d at 591. Whether a cause of action is sufficiently pled is a legal issue which we review de novo. TC MidAtlantic Dev., 280 Va. at 210, 695 S.E.2d at 547. Pursuant to Code § 2.2-4303, which identifies the [m]ethods of procurement to be used in awarding public contracts, the contract was to be awarded after competitive sealed bidding. Competitive sealed bidding is a method of contractor selection, other than for professional services. Code § 2.2-4301. [4] Code § 2.2-4303(A) states that [a]ll public contracts with nongovernmental contractors for the purchase or lease of goods, or for the purchase of services, insurance, or construction, shall be awarded after competitive sealed bidding, or competitive negotiation as provided in this section, unless otherwise authorized by law. (Emphasis added.) This section enumerates certain contracts that may be awarded and purchases that may be made using competitive negotiation or other methods of procurement. Code § 2.2-4303(B)-(J). The School Board's contract does not fall within any of these subsections providing for a procurement method other than competitive sealed bidding. The process to be followed by the public body in procuring a contract under the competitive sealed bidding process is set forth in the Act and consists of the following elements: 1. Issuance of a written Invitation to Bid containing or incorporating by reference the specifications and contractual terms and conditions applicable to the procurement. Unless the public body has provided for prequalification of bidders, the Invitation to Bid shall include a statement of any requisite qualifications of potential contractors.... 2. Public notice of the Invitation to Bid at least 10 days prior to the date set for receipt of bids by posting on the Department of General Services' central electronic procurement website or other appropriate websites.... 3. Public opening and announcement of all bids received. 4. Evaluation of bids based upon the requirements set forth in the invitation, which may include special qualifications of potential contractors, life-cycle costing, value analysis, and any other criteria such as inspection, testing, quality, workmanship, delivery, and suitability for a particular purpose, which are helpful in determining acceptability. [5] 5. Award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. ... [6] Code § 2.2-4301 (emphasis added). Therefore, under the plain language of the Act, the School Board was required to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. We reject the School Board's position that its utilization of best value concepts permitted it to award the contract to the best value bidder instead of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. [7] Although the Act permits public bodies to consider best value concepts when procuring goods and nonprofessional services, Code § 2.2-4300, it does not provide the School Board with a method of procurement in lieu of competitive sealed bidding. See Code § 2.2-4303(C). [8] To accept the School Board's position, we would have to add language to the fifth element of competitive sealed bidding set forth in Code § 2.2-4301 by providing for an award to the best value bidder as an alternative to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. We cannot change or amend legislative enactments in this manner. See, e.g., Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Roanoke, Inc. v. County of Botetourt, 259 Va. 559, 565, 526 S.E.2d 746, 750 (2000). In addition to PBM's claim that the School Board failed to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, PBM asserts that the School Board's consideration of best value criteria did not comply with the Act. For example, PBM alleges that at the second meeting between representatives from PBM and the School Board, PBM was informed that two reasons it was not the successful bidder were PBM's failure to address how a transition from its existing janitorial company to PBM would be handled and its failure to explain how background checks would be undertaken. According to PBM, these factors were not included in the Invitation criteria. PBM also contends the Invitation did not identify factors that would be considered in how points were allocated among the bid criteria or how points would be awarded to bidders. Under the Act, the criteria and basis for evaluating bids must be stated in the Invitation and the evaluation of the bids must be in accordance with such criteria. See Code § 2.2-4300(C) (The criteria, factors, and basis for consideration of best value and the process for the consideration of best value shall be as stated in the procurement solicitation.); Code § 2.2-4301 (evaluation of the bids must be based upon the requirements set forth in the invitation). In sum, the circuit court erred in finding that PBM does not adequately allege the School Board failed to properly follow the requirements of the Act. Since the Act requires the School Board to award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder and to describe the criteria used to evaluate the bid in its Invitation, PBM's claims that the School Board failed to comply with these requirements sufficiently plead a cause of action under the Act. See Code § 2.2-4364(C)(ii)(circuit court may reverse award that is not in accordance with law and the terms and conditions of the Invitation).