Opinion ID: 1286550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Request for Proposals

Text: Gunderson claims that UAF violated the Alaska procurement code and its own regulations by failing to disclose relevant evaluation criteria in the RFP as required by state law [4] and UAF procurement regulations. Specifically, Gunderson claims that the RFP failed to list the factors that were going to be considered by the procurement officer in evaluating the proposals and omitted information about the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors. AS 36.30.200, which sets forth the competitive sealed proposal method for awarding an agency contract, does not apply to the University because AS 36.30.990(1) specifically exempts the University from the definition of agency under the state procurement code. [5] Furthermore, under AS 36.30.005(c), all rights, powers, duties and authority relating to the procurement of supplies, services, professional services, and construction are delegated to the University's Board of Regents. However, this provision also states that [t]o the maximum extent possible, authority granted under this subsection shall be exercised in accordance with this chapter. Additionally, the Board of Regents is directed to adopt regulations ... that are substantially equivalent to the regulations adopted by the commissioner of administration. AS 36.30.005(c). The requirements governing the issuance of an RFP are contained in the University's Procurement Regulations and Procedures (PR & P). PR & P 3-064(2) requires an RFP to include (1) the purchase description; (2) the evaluation criteria; (3) the delivery or performance schedule; and (4) the inspection and acceptance requirements that are not included in the purchase description. We conclude that in addition to a purchase description, the RFP contained all of the requirements, including a statement of the criteria for evaluation and award. RFP No. 93P0035TK provides in part: The University of Alaska Fairbanks is soliciting offers for the hauling and off loading of coal for the UAF Power Plant. Transportation services are to be provided from mine mouth, Healy, Alaska to the UAF Power Plant. Coal shall be off loaded into the coal receiving facility located below the railroad tracks at the UAF Power Plant facility. The successful offeror shall provide all labor, equipment and supplies necessary to execute the terms and conditions contained in this RFP. The University requires from 110 to 220 tons of coal per day depending on load and weather conditions. Hauling and off loading services shall be performed in support of continuous operation of the Power Plant. The contract shall commence upon award and shall continue until June 30, 1994, with one (1) year renewal options for up to seven (7) additional years, ending not later than June 30, 2001. We hold that the foregoing satisfies the requirement of a purchase description for purposes of P-3-064(2) as well as explicitly describing the delivery or performance schedule. The RFP also contains evaluation criteria, including price, responsiveness and responsibility: Subject to provisions of section 11, Instructions to Offerors, and the terms and conditions contained herein, an award will be to a single offeror. Award will be to the low responsive, responsible offeror whose offer conforms in all essential respects to the solicitation requirements, price and other factors specifically set forth herein considered. .... The University may award a contract on the basis of initial proposals received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. Discussions or negotiations may be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range. If Best and Final offers are requested, they will be evaluated against the same criteria as were the initial proposals. Even if the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP were deficient in some unexplained respect, Gunderson has failed to demonstrate that such error prejudiced [his] proposal in comparison to others, since each proposal received identical treatment. King v. Alaska State Hous. Auth., 512 P.2d 887, 894 (Alaska 1973) (holding agency's failure to assign specific grade to earthquake risk did not deprive evaluation of proposals of reasonable basis); see also Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist. v. Bowers Office Prods., Inc., 851 P.2d 56, 59 n. 3 (Alaska 1993) (finding consideration of factors only implicitly included in RFP justified). [6] A review of the record confirms the University's assertion that the RFP contained the evaluation factors required by P-3-064. We therefore affirm the superior court's decision holding that UAF's RFP included sufficient evaluation factors to satisfy the requirements of state law and UAF's own regulations.