HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.004.1987 __ -�-w-�,-
u- .�...�
.�. .�__-------_
'�:
"���. . __,. _� . . _._. . .
, .. . _, ._.. .._ _ ..
� ����'.}{��.Rf'� �1 7.x' ia2'�' ��4, �i!� �3�+i 1 i�
���� , ,"J :;"1,.� �.. it,�el k��� 'f� � ��y.'1 � � YTp��}��r�,�.A!•'����u(]���'{i,'�i f� .
• .�. ���.- 1,� � F�J,�..��'�i�3'� �.�'�. . . .... .'M�������J'��fK Nr11tq.'Y`�:�
�'].`..a X' �.JS.L ti.fi. ...+±. n . �2 a.�r,sa:a-,c�c.
.. 4.:.;'..._.
�e�.=:,.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO,
: (SITTING AS THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD
OE PROCUREMENT APPEALS) DENYING `< �
THE BID SOLICITATION AND AWARD PROTEST APPEAL OF �`i�
SIROUS SAGHATOLESLAMI AND SETTING OUT FINDINGS
OF FACT IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
�..��-`, .
' Resolution No, 1987 - 4
-:��
, � WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Office of Asset Management C'
.'...�",/ 1
_ oonducted a procurement process, pursuant to the Pitkin County
�
;� Procurement Code (��Code"), in October and November 1986 to select �-
a food/beverage service operator for the Pitkin County Airport;
''.`;-�
-;'� and
� WHEREAS, four bids were received, a winner of the _
`�t process was chosen and a bid award was made; and
*.'sx�
."� WHEREAS, Sirous Saghatoleslami, an unsuccessful bidder,
filed a timely protest to the County Manager, pursuant to Section
_;"_:� .
�r`�� 5-101 of the Code, and the Pitkin County Manager filed a written
��,`� decision denying the protest; and
,�;.:,� WHEREAS, Mr. Saghatoleslami then fiZed a timely apgeal
to the County Mahager's decision to the Board of County Commis-
-a� i
•�-,� sioners sitting as the Pitkin County Procurement Appeals Board
` ,b
-�;� ("Board"), pursuant to Section 5-403 of the Code; and
� ��� WHEREAS, the Board conducted a duly-noticed de novo
appeal hearing on December 16, 1986, at which all proper parties
;:� appeared, gave testimony, introduced exhibits into the record and ;'
made arguments and rebuttals; •''",�?t;�
.�� �� .
7�¢���yV
�. ,C^" '
,.,.� �. ��.
sx.
J::
- f:
.��:�
. �,��' _�.! . , .
r,,;�;�w -
.:fF;� - � • . t
:..••�L;y,�� � . . .
�����r . . • .
`'ji;� -
i�._�vN�:'�. ' . .
:�'Y�c�R°�°..;
.�,"-5�4„'Oµ`'.'���
�.,�h•'
,�:�z�w�'w+:�:; .
::�<rRr�:i.°,�.
'°v_w� �!,,-
`£u:W...,;`^� . ,
J�f;y.� •
a
`s,,���x . ,`
_^'�'y��; +
,,;.:.,�,�• �
__ i _�_�.�..___,�m�
'�� _ . .___...._ .
r-. ._ � . . .. /h �'�(NyT�m,y .i: � ,.
j�i,t-. . � . , . . 1.- � � . � '(` t k��. 3I�rp��'F++.t�T.�����{} 'I�'"���.'Y-� �: �'{�S4x�
� 4 "C���t � �"7� �i '!z .£� 4� -.sx• L
�. J i �, � �'</�� .. �"'� ���`� �.�" ] �T.�;: �� �''
. .... '����"._.��'i�..��������l�i��.��..�PFL.��t,.'�,'. � , -��r5'e �'6:s�.�..r�4.T.fiA�.�c . � . �.r�'�;a+t
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony and svidence
presented at the appeals hearing, the Board finds and concludes
as follows: �'
i.::-..
A) With respect to the Invitation For Bids and the
� `,' .
Evaluation Criteria: f"
; 1) The Technical Requirements contained in the
`=`� Invitation for Bids were a reasonably clear and complete (and not :
F
unduly restrictive) "purchase description" as defined in the �F.
'`�� Code. That the Invitation for Bids encouraged competition is � .
:::�<j r.,
i demonstrated by the fact that four competent, experienced �
r �`� restaurant operators submitted bids without protest, objection or
',�
,� unresolved requests for clarification.
� 2) The Technical Requirements were reasonable and
,_�
,.;:� rationally based on County policy and managerial performance and ,
,h� income needs for the Airport food/beverage service operation.
_!� 3� Even if the Technical Requirements were not
"��i completely clear and complete, the bidders were provided with
�`�;� notice (by the Instructions To Bidders) and a reasonable oppor-
�..t tunity to seek clarification or object prior to the submission of
bids or the opening of bids and, in fact, none of the bidders `
- �:.
;
sought clarification or objected. ,;
� 4) The "scoring sheet" was used primarily to
i
� provide guidance to the Selection Committee in the application of
the criteria specified in the Technical Requirements and the - �--
' �_=
I evaluation of the bid submissions but, to the extent the "scoring �;�
�. �.
`I .::::�...
sheet" contained new criteria elements, the new criteria elements "�:'.;;;'��'
�'", .-+
� s^ �.
2 '�°"`�' `"'�
I � ,r�:
���
i
�
. , --
, � .
' _ . - .
i�+ `, . ... . .. . . ... � - . . . . . . . • � �. � : - , .. . - , -
� �v,�_
�.r�F:::'' ' '
t. "
" '.
..iF:14':,- ' '
. ;;)i.;i''' . . , .
-�x.�:�. - • - .
.h�3ss'.�:...�*y 1- _
:;s.��C�:F:.'i y .
;��y�'��wX..�"
_-i'S Yev. .
�:�k'�;��. .
£�� � «
�' ?�, �
J.:�}.:. ;, � . .
1 T4::
�� _. __, . ....... .,,:.,... . .. .... �.__ _ .
� • ' � ��I����s �°,,�h"�M���°� .t5 °�,si;t t�,
,..�. .- .r:. '�w k +' ��_}�i�! � �� � � �'L , , r_
.. `: ,�j�
i r '•�,- i{r� 'iv� . �r(kr �y�,�,'� r F`x i `9` ;��.
� �'!��,�,�'Jap?�r� �,� J� �,� R:: -,�' a . 7
� ��'�M �. . :h. ..-.. e�,�..�i�i'�"�?7��:.f. .. ���'F - 1 j 5
i �S
;5� . �' , . � '�.
, . . i.... . . . _ . .. •�4'.+s:
were clear and rational, the bidders had adequate notice of those
new criteria elements and/or adequate opportunity to object or to -
ask for additional response time and, in fact, none of the '�:.;; .
bidders objected or asked for additional response time. .`-y•``.
5) The evaluation criteria and requirements
� ultimately used in the scoring and award were rational, ade- �
,�
quately set forth and limited to those set forth in the Invita-
tion ��:.:.:_
� for Bids. y:-,:.
�
-:�j �...�� ...�
:µ� 6) The Appellant waived his right to object or �'�'
ls r��.°
-�: ,� protest the use of the "scoring sheet�� as part of the selection
<� process, pursuant to paragraph 4.c. of the Instructions To
� Bidders, by the submission and opening of his bid under the facts
{
:.� presented at the hearing.
:.� B) With respect to the Bid Process: l
F�
� 1) The procurement process was a multi-step bid
:� process, pursuant to Section 3-202(8) of the Code. Given the '
`� nature of the procurement, the multi-step bid process, which set ;
� out saquential performance and payment bid submissions and was �,
a �.
� not based on price alone, was appropriate. The Board ratifies �`
c.
the hi h erformance threshold based on the h'
,� 4 P ( previous operator's
t
� level of performance) and the minimum bid amount, both as set out ���
� in the Bid Documents.
l
i
� 2) Adequate public notice of the bid process was �.� ;'.r�:•
� _::;, ..
- made by publication and direct solicitation to a party on a - t:=`
( e?
I mailing list and the bidders had reasonable notice of the nature �`����::`�^��
e :;
iof the process. ;� �r �
i '•'s
'� :;,.�y. ``
��.
� 3 rz rc-`
`I -
� ,�.
�
• *; . . .
, t�� �"
t
::x::;`i'."s . . . � . . . -
'�z���r,.i�;i,.c;:' . • � . .
i.4—,,..{i7�'. ' .
�..1.�i.��;�
':.y,.
����+.�}��� . ..
';}�1!i.l..:i(,�I�':" �
i,°}l:'�
,':r,�'�w�;' .
;��::;�
.��;% M ,_
w���
�� ,,c-: � �
� � '
. ,. ____ _
r:' �t
���; , - . `.v'� rJ�s � �j ��'� -
...w K , `� K� -���H��i'.�i
't �, f����� �Af�!'.fr�� S
. . , 'o .4 �. 31 � :�h
r_{.}�7 � � �` :W.r ::, � � -- ; '2'- �iM � �w ��E� .Zr Y 4
" �+M �x::�tl`x'� .,_ . . , .. � � !. __ . . __ . . _. . y+,,���yJ .
�� r"t �4 �. �`f"-.C.ii':
3) Even if the bidders did not have adequate
notice of the nature of the process early in the process, •
publication of the "scoring sheetn gave them adequate notice °,'`
F;:;
and/or adequate opportunity to object or to ask for additional t
t r`" .
4:,,
time and, in fact, none of the bidders objected or requested
additional time.
_ �;
C) With respect to the Bid Evaluation, Scoring and "� �
..
E
Award: r '
r;:j !
- 1} The Appellant's saoring (and consequential
Y disqualification) by the Selection Committee was in accordance
��'�<.�x,..
with the applicable criteria and was supported by substantial
,.;_-�
'c�� competent evidence from the bid submission materials. The
:�_� Appellant's bid did not meet the performance minimums set out in
'._� the evaluation criteria and requirements and was, therefore, non-
�';T�
`� responsive. The Appellant's bid was noti "as detailed as pos-
:'�� sible" in writin " °
- g, and did not strictly aomply with the
��` Technical Requirements, both as required in the Invitation For
'"i� Bids and was, therefore, non-responsive. The Asset Management
:';� Office, while reservinq the rights to: (1) "short-list" bidders _
;'a and proceed to a secondary selection process; (2) interview : '
�� k
'.�� bidders; and (3) request additional information from bidders, was
;� not required to do so and scoring based on the original bid
� materials submitted is acceptable.
;� 2) Pour La France's scoring (and consequential
;� award of the bid} by the Selection Committee was in accordance k�,,;.
._I y.�`,
�,�x.
-� �`.. �:
� 4
.� +
�
_� � .
t _ _
, ' ti� :
_ - �
„f�`".�" :.E��' ' .
'. �::1:w.- � . .
ti..�%:;^..�`,' ' . .
:�i.::� �lae.'c .
.:k'.::;i�:
'��:''=y,a`%�c• . .
.-,����.:�:�
._,����`„_ .
.��.r+`w'F� ~ „ t�
;��,�
+"�'},�`,�.��� � . •
�� �:.i;;2{c` `
�._ _. . _ ...�, ...__ �_
Y'
,R�1,. . . . ' . - . _.. . .. � .. , .,...� ..` _. i. ... � . . . . . ' .
S
ri.�'� ����� � �LJ ��W��� � .
. �-fk ��'�� �'�� ���,� , ��,+ r'1
4
,:. �:. 'IK�r'� f. 1}�`r � f"l�iyc� ,�r��: Ya��. �• 1 � .
�}�:
.r ����.�4a� ��� R�. . .���yy'+���.r���,l'3' .�1'.... . .. '�� ._ _ w ` . r� .3'����tt .
with the applicable criteria and was supported by adequate
competent evidence from the bid submission.
D) With respect to compliance with the requirements of �
�i:;:
the Pitkin County Procurement Code and due process: � �:
1) The Selection Process was substantially in i<,
compliance with the Code and fundamentally fair as applied to the
�
Appellant. '
F :
t
2) The Selection Process was fair to all bidders �•:
k:
�,;.;�,;{ as a class. The flaws in the process, to the extent they ;;
! �:
r prejudiced any bidders, prejudiced all equally. All flaws
�3��
�,:'� brought to the attention of County staff were corrected. All
''�;.� bidders had adequate notice of and opportunity to request
clarifications, to object or to request additional time prior to
� ����r�
;2.�;ij,� submission of bids and, in fact, none did so request or object.
E) With respect to compliance with the policies
expressed in the Procurement Code:
...,'.� 1) The procurement process, though it contained
s •
;;;:.2� regrettable administrative flaws, was rational, at least minimal-
!.� ly fair, in compliance with the policies of the Code and produced
.,� an acceptable result for the County taxpayers and Airport users,
_:�,��
,� i.e., the process attracted four competent, experienced restaur-
ant operators as bidders; there were no unresolved protests,
1 i
� objections or requests from the four bidders prior to opening of r
`
the bids; the technical requirements and evaluation criteria were
reasonable and soundly based on County management goals; the .,�.:
� �
; �',
`� Selection Committee scoring was based on substantial competent i,�=
_ :_::I 'k��;
•'z,..� 5 !�'c
-_ `�
3:-:.�
_ '`�
F k. ,
. t .�u'�-��� ' . . . . _ � .. . �. � . - . �_ �.. - . . � - .. . . . .
��:-±:<s
:`,-,:
- ' , f
.. 'j�j:`y � . .
X • •
� y_:�.
„"1.?ii�iv r.
:�:�.�-�--+�iF'.Y.i 7� .. �
,� ....C.;'..
ar,y�.
.y,,,
..��f:�y'�.� ' �.
.fil:.�::.
^� �NS?; ` �
� __ __ ____
��.
,�. ., . . . . .. � .. . ... •_°_..-. .. .. � ..'h� �i -�r.K��n yst a+'. G �i• ;':n;iaji•}�- ,
r. .::iF '�_���`�+,�, ,�� 1 1�t}h`rI� .
'�'''�(�.:. �� i"_. � - :5•;�� � y • � ��..�} f��� .rh.�ij�y� ;y�'l�.`�;�S� ��r ! i s���� �, �
' �, �� �,`,�0 4 1^t� M .
... � �.:...�.:;, . �� ._,._ .... _ .... ��r.s?i«'�.x. .... ... - .. �' , .x . a�' i3'?�r ..
evidence in the bid submissions; the winner of the process is an
experienced, high-quality operator and the bid amoun�k was 30�
above the minimum established. t •
;::
F) With respect to the County Manager's written � ,
decision:
1) Although the appeal hearing was de novo, the
County Manager's written decision denying Appellant's protest is `
--:::�:; approved, adopted and incorporated herein by this reference. �
�
-c:`'�;�: Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that the
:�.:=,� 'ti .
�`' :,:-:�:>? solicitation and award were in compliance with the Procurement
,':x.�;;;r
_:::.,,.T Code and regulations, due process requirements, the terms and
-;`�5�p conditions of the solicitation and the policy and standards of
-x:^�j ,
:��,,;�_:'i the County.
��'^�'�
�`�^�;:x APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commission-
�„��='= ers sitting as Pitkin County Procurement Appeals Board (by a vote p
.�,., .
."� - of 3 to 2 , Commissioners X�SL6Z.G ►r`Qf�g� ,
:r..:�; , �b C(�'�A
;:;;�-� � ��'�a-�� and l voting aye) , at
_ a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners on the
�;��:�; 12th day of January, 1987.
, '"'�a BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
`:�:"'; ATTEST: OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
__:::�
� BY� �.• ;
y� � D puty Clerk & ecorder H . nderud t ,.
�' Chai oman � � ;
.'' S.
( �Ir:
___i ��..
r
. -.`.:'I 6 r_.
-, � .
i _
.-,�
-;;�
�:�
r y
� � � .. .` . _ . . � . '
� fJ .
� ' . . .... . � . .. . . .. .. " . .. ' . . . .
. .;��� .. . .
' ' . (
'.�'`'h���' � .
?�•��1k).' . . • .
ti
�� r
�w7�. .
FS�q` +4'_t(j: .
�'.tr(;t!?.::�L°: '
'. ���-''':
�.,..'qi� J::t
:ti_
,.��w.''.�`k4�. .. � ' .
� 4, i +`
�.�;-;;�g .
�:r'���r � � . .
� _ -
s;:;, ._ ,
...- .. :.........._._ _
,
� 4 ' .� , � � 'i... r� w�"`�'� ;._:
• �i ; K �^�`•'`� 1�v��I��{`f f j'\�'
' i . t vr� � 1�� II t t ----' 4 i qy�y4�'}�,°�.. �7f1
�� �.. F�'�� ���.'��' K_ '.!NL�.��INJ:1l.rY.r;1.�►A'�[' r +'ti..... . r �.�• . . . , . ..:�a���tt��
.. Y,..ti:_.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
.`;.
� Gar ary `�' .'
� As ist Cou y Attorney 5.``. _r
�I �,.
-�
,';yci' y
-;
♦r
Yy �'f`
� �� :j'�`-�� ..
��� �
'µ'�
3�
��xl
�.�
.�;,;�
,;r:
�'r=
4
'`e�-
1L•
�p� ,
;i� �
�.:_::`-'J:�
E'Hs
..,t:�. y
� Y
't�_ '
� �
�. _
� i':"::��::.� �
- . `.ny���C,
�Y`•'.
c:\word\airport\sirous.bid .�.�:;_
. ;�.�s,..,
�,:>:
. _�m
7
`ti
• -�`•�
�e
iJ .
4.�
a�'."�'�,w.'n.,:e..��e! f L - � � Y-
. "��s.x� L r�' S-5 s.i!�+i�7 •;;:;:.:` . . . __. . '��r .. _ s.l i v , 5 ...._ .. .
'G'�(��y.,��a .. . � ' .
-,4�+-��v �.'' � ' . � . ' . .
. . �X �-" . . . , .
. �'�Y''•. _- . . . . - � � � .
����4�� . ' . . . �
..j+�.�r��._ . . . , � . . . . . .
. �,���- . . , .. . ._( . . . . .
s
�s�`s'5 ,4,� �.
�R�•r`��'� E.." .. . _. . . . . . . . . . ...��.
iLr� �
��.,���
� �.�.,�.' �
��;
.. :��- ,
.. _ ��
:� <
;'���, � .
<;.;,