Centurylink Public Communications, Inc. v. Department of Corrections
109 A.3d 820
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Department issued RFP to provide inmate telephone system with oversight and monitoring capability; sole contact was Issuing Officer; proposal evaluation weighted 50% technical, 30% cost, 20% SDB, 3% Domestic Workforce; 70% technical threshold required for BAFO/negotiations; protests allowed within seven days of knowledge of facts; debriefings and potential site demonstrations for reasonably susceptible bidders.
- In December 2013 proposals were submitted by Securus, CenturyLink, GTL, and Telmate; GTL and Securus crossed the 70% technical threshold after site visits and re-evaluation, while CenturyLink and Telmate did not.
- Securus ultimately received the highest overall score (861.32) after combining technical, cost, SDB and bonus points; a contract with Securus was executed in April 2014; CenturyLink was informed of the award in April 2014 and protested in May 2014.
- During protest proceedings, the Secretary allowed Securus to participate in the protest due to potential substantial issues, though Securus’ submissions did not affect the merits.
- The Secretary rejected CenturyLink’s challenges to deductions of technical points, challenges under 513(g)/(f), and waiver/temporal issues; the Department’s decision to award to Securus was sustained on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Secretary’s deduction of CenturyLink’s technical points was proper | CenturyLink argues improper deductions and lack of opportunity to respond | Secretary found deductions supported by record facts (non-compliance, negative feedback, etc.) and discretionary evaluation | Yes, deductions reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Integrated Biometric Tech precedent required ruling | CenturyLink relies on Integrated Biometric to require response opportunities | Integrated Biometric distinguished; information was already raised in protest | No abuse; information was properly considered without a new hearing |
| Whether Securus could participate in protest as a selected offeror | CenturyLink contends only protestants and contracting officer can participate | Handbook allows participation by bidders with substantial prospect of winning | Proper for Securus to participate; no error |
| Whether 70% technical threshold waived any claim under 513(a)/(g) | CenturyLink argues threshold misuse and failure to seek clarification | Threshold was not timely protested; discretionary; no requirement to seek further clarification for non-responsible offeror | Waiver timely; no error; Department acted within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- JPay, Inc. v. Department of Corrections, 89 A.3d 756 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014) (discretion to consider matters outside bidding; no hearing required where appropriate)
- Integrated Biometric Technology, LLC v. Department of General Services, 22 A.3d 303 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (need to allow bidder to address issues raised; inapposite here)
- Language Line Services v. Department of General Services, 991 A.2d 383 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (protest process; fair and equal treatment)
- Gamer v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 16 A.3d 1189 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (harmless error standard; deference to agency discretion)
- Scientific Games International, Inc. v. Governor’s Office of Administration, 78 A.3d 714 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (protest timing; waiver principles; timely grounds)