UNIBRIDGE SYSTEMS, INC. v. PATTERSON
2017 OK CIV APP 32
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- ODOT issued an RFP (Solicitation #3450004339) for demolition and replacement of a three-platform truck scale at El Reno requiring hydraulic compression stainless-steel load cells and NTEP Certificates of Conformance (Handbook 44 compliance).
- Two bids: Cardinal ($299,950) and Unibridge ($262,846). ODOT deemed Unibridge nonresponsive for proposing an electronic analog load-cell system and non-stainless alloy materials; award went to Cardinal.
- Unibridge protested to ODOT, appealed administratively, and then to district court after ODOT affirmed the award; the district court affirmed the agency decision. Unibridge appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- Key disputes: whether the procurement was a construction contract (governed by the Public Competitive Bidding Act) or an acquisition of goods/services (governed by the Central Purchasing Act); whether the solicitation was a sole-source procurement; and whether Cardinal’s NTEP certificates satisfied Handbook 44 requirements.
- The ALJ and ODOT found the solicitation was predominantly an acquisition under the CPA, not a public construction contract under the PCBA; found the procurement was not sole-source; and found Cardinal’s submitted NTEP certificates satisfied the solicitation requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing statute: CPA vs. PCBA | Solicitation is a public construction or mixed contract with construction predominant; should be let under PCBA | Procuring a scale is an acquisition of equipment; installation is incidental, so CPA governs | CPA governs; predominant thrust was acquisition of scale, construction incidental; agency findings upheld |
| Sole-source determination | Cardinal is the only known maker of hydraulic compression stainless-steel load cells specified | ODOT’s internet research showed other potential suppliers; not sole-source | Not sole-source; agency’s factual finding supported by some evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Compliance with NIST Handbook 44 (NTEP certificates) | Expert Opperman: Cardinal’s certificates do not meet v-min formula and do not cover required capacity | ODOT/Cardinal experts and NTEP admin: certificates comply; differing interpretations of v-min exist; certificates cover individual platforms | Agency reasonably found Cardinal’s NTEP certificates compliant; conflicting expert testimony did not render decision clearly erroneous |
| Bid responsiveness (technical specs) | Unibridge argued award violated solicitation requirements and that its bid should have been accepted | ODOT found Unibridge’s bid nonresponsive for not proposing hydraulic compression stainless-steel load cells | ODOT properly rejected Unibridge as nonresponsive; Cardinal was most responsive bidder |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert Cent. Corp. v. State, 716 P.2d 654 (Okla. 1986) (predominant-thrust test for mixed sale vs. construction contracts)
- Agrawal v. Oklahoma Dept. of Labor, 364 P.3d 618 (Okla. 2015) (administrative-order review standard; substantial-evidence and no substitution of agency factfinding)
- Oklahoma Dep't of Pub. Safety v. McCrady, 176 P.3d 1194 (Okla. 2007) (deference to agency factual determinations on review)
- Indiana Nat'l Bank v. State, 857 P.2d 53 (Okla. 1993) (Central Purchasing Act scope and purpose)
- Tubbs v. State ex rel. Teachers' Ret. Sys. of Okla., 57 P.3d 571 (Okla. 2002) (substantial-evidence standard for agency findings)
- Carpet City, Inc. v. Stillwater Mun. Hosp. Auth., 536 P.2d 335 (Okla. 1975) (definition of construction)
- Scott v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Ass'n, 313 P.3d 891 (Okla. 2013) (administrative-review principles)