This post is another in my continuing series on the basic tenets of public bidding in Pennsylvania. The subject of today’s post is the Request for Proposal (RFP) and whether, and to what extent, the general rules of sealed, competitive bidding apply to RFPs.
An RFP is a type of invitation to bid. It is typically used where the public entity seeks to enter into a contract in the area of professional services – such as architectural, engineering or legal services. This is because contracts for those services are not governed by the rule of lowest responsive, responsible bidder, and in fact can be awarded, in many instances, without any competition whatsoever and to a bidder whose bid is not the lowest in price.
In Malloy v. Boyertown Area School Bd., 540 Pa. 308, 657 A.2d 915 (1995), a seminal case in this area, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court described the reasons why the “low bid” rule does not apply to professional services contracts:
For those contracts for which the distinctiveness and quality of service is the paramount concern, there exists a special relationship between the property owner and the contractor. In these types of contracts, the contractor owes a special duty of loyalty to the property owner because the contractor in essence becomes the property owner’s agent and, therefore, must act in good faith and always in the furtherance of the property owner’s interests vis-à-vis the other contractors on the project.
The Supreme Court’s statement nicely summarizes why professional services contracts are not subject to the low bid rule. There is an element of trust in such contracts, and this element is not necessarily assumed by the bidder whose bid is the lowest. So, the public entity has discretion in the award of such contracts and can seek to enter into such contract through an RFP process.
However, once the public entity embarks on a course of bidding, even via a more informal RFP process which does allow for negotiation, it is bound to “adhere to that procedure throughout the procurement process.” In Lasday v. Allegheny County, 499 Pa. 434, 453 A.2d 949 (1982), another seminal case in this area, Allegheny County solicited proposals under an RFP for operation of a newstand and gift shop concession. The RFP stated that separate proposals to operate only the newstand would not be accepted. Nonetheless, Allegheny County then allowed one proposer to make such a proposal and to grant the concession to that proposer on the basis of its proposal, without also allowing the existing operator an opportunity to submit such a proposal. The Supreme Court held that this was improper and held that, once an RFP process is undertaken, it must be adhered to in all respects in accordance with its instructions and guidelines.
If you are a respondent to a public RFP, consider these rules carefully, and remember that the public entity cannot act contrary to the instructions of its own RFP.
Christopher I. McCabe, Esq.
