JPay, Inc. v. Department of Corrections
89 A.3d 756
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- DOC awarded a 2010 contract to JPay for incoming inmate email, EFTs, and money‑order lockbox services; outgoing email and kiosks were listed as optional services and not included in the 2010 contract.
- In 2012 OA (on behalf of DOC) issued an RFP seeking a turnkey kiosk system (including incoming and outgoing email, MP3/media devices, commissary, visitor deposits). The RFP stated only two mandatory requirements: timely submission and signature; other nonconformities could be waived or cured.
- JPay, GTL, and Keefe submitted proposals; GTL received the highest score after best and final offers and was selected for contract negotiations on January 25, 2013.
- JPay filed a protest on February 1, 2013 raising three grounds: (1) the 2012 RFP interfered with JPay’s exclusive rights under the 2010 contract; (2) DOC breached an obligation to negotiate optional services with JPay; (3) GTL’s selection was unjustified because its proposal misrepresented relevant experience.
- The OA designee denied the protest (April 4, 2013): held JPay’s first two grounds untimely, refused to require disclosure of GTL’s reference materials, and concluded GTL met the mandatory RFP requirements and that experience-related deficiencies were waivable or scorable.
- JPay appealed. The court affirmed the Determination: untimeliness of first two grounds, no statutory right to the contracting‑officer documents, 60‑day deadline was directory not mandatory, and OA reasonably exercised discretion to waive or consider experience information in scoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of challenges to RFP/contract rights | JPay: protest timely when OA selected GTL (selection, not RFP issuance, caused injury) | OA: protest should have been filed within 7 days of RFP issuance when facts were known | Held: untimely — JPay knew/should have known at RFP issuance; claims had to be filed within 7 days of that date |
| Right to discover GTL’s reference documents cited by contracting officer | JPay: Section 1711.1(d) entitles protestant to documents the contracting officer deems relevant | OA: §1711.1(d) permits contracting officer to submit documents, but §1711.1(e) governs disclosure to protestant and designee did not deem those documents necessary | Held: JPay not entitled to discovery of GTL references; only documents deemed necessary by designee under §1711.1(e) must be provided |
| Timeliness of Designee’s Determination (60‑day rule) | JPay: Determination issued 62 days after protest; 60‑day requirement is mandatory, so delay invalidates Determination | OA: 60‑day requirement is directory; no prejudice to JPay; remedy stayed during protest | Held: 60‑day deadline is directory; two‑day delay does not invalidate Determination |
| Adequacy of GTL selection (experience misrepresentations) | JPay: GTL misrepresented experience (MP3, email, Kentucky/South Carolina projects), so GTL failed mandatory RFP requirements and should be excluded or rescored | OA: only two mandatory requirements were timeliness and signature; experience info was waivable or scorable and OA reasonably relied on GTL’s references | Held: Designee did not abuse discretion — experience requirements were not mandatory; OA could waive/score them and need not hold hearing; protest denied on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Integrated Biometric Technology, LLC v. Department of General Services, 22 A.3d 303 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (discusses designee’s duty to provide protestant documents deemed necessary under §1711.1(e))
- Scientific Games Int’l, Inc. v. Governor’s Office of Administration, 78 A.3d 714 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2013) (protest should be filed within seven days of RFP issuance when facts giving rise to protest are known)
- Gaeta v. Ridley School District, 788 A.2d 363 (Pa. 2002) (agency may waive nonstatutory RFP defects if waiver won’t deprive assurance of performance or confer advantage)
- Language Line Services, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 991 A.2d 383 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (imperative language in RFP does not necessarily create mandatory requirement; agency discretion to waive)
- Dragani v. Borough of Ambler, 37 A.3d 27 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (RFP specifications generally mandatory, but agency decisions on acceptances/waivers afforded deference)