Recent Commonwealth Court Decision Affirms Core Bidding Principles

A recent decision concerning a bid protest filed on a PennDOT contract re-affirmed core principles of public bidding and bid protests on Commonwealth contracts.

In Sidelines Tree Service, LLC v. Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth Court considered an appeal from a denial of a bid protest filed on a contract for line-clearance tree-trimming services. The hearing officer determined that the disappointed bidder was non-responsible due to its poor performance on prior PennDOT contracts, and denied the protest. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed. Read more

Posted on February 3, 2022 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Protests, Bidder Responsibility, Com. of Pa., Court Decisions, PennDOT, Public Bidding 101, Responsibility Comments Off

Construction Activities May Resume In Pennsylvania On May 1

The temporary, Covid-19 related shutdown of the construction industry in Pennsylvania is finally coming to an end.

Beginning Friday, May 1, all construction industry businesses will be permitted to maintain in-person operations statewide in Pennsylvania, so long as their activities strictly adhere to the official guidance issued by Governor Tom Wolf, applicable public health safety measures, and applicable OSHA requirements. The official PA guidance covers residential, commercial, and public works construction activities. Local governments, like the City of Philadelphia, may, however, elect to impose more stringent requirements than those contained in the official guidance, in which case businesses will need to adhere to the more stringent requirements.

In resuming their construction activities and operations, all construction industry businesses must follow the official PA guidance for the construction industry, the applicable PA public health safety measures, and OSHA guidance for the construction workforce. Read more

Posted on April 27, 2020 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Com. of Pa., Covid-19, General Comments Off

Commonwealth Court Strikes Down Use Of Project Labor Agreements Except In Extraordinary Circumstances

A project labor agreement (PLA) is a “pre-hire” collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor unions that establishes the working conditions on a specific, usually public, construction project. PLAs are controversial, not least because they typically restrict nonunion contractors from using their own workforce and require them instead to hire their workforce from the local unions’ labor pool, but their previous use on public projects in Pennsylvania has been upheld. However, in a recent case brought by two nonunion contractors, the Commonwealth Court has now invalidated the use of a PLA on a public highway project as a violation of Pennsylvania’s strict competitive bidding requirements for public contracts.

In December 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) issued a bid for a highway improvement project for US Route 202 in Norristown. The bid required the winning contractor to sign a PLA with the Building and Construction Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity, which represented 11 local unions. The PLA required the winning contractor to hire their workforce through the local unions and to be bound by the local unions’ collective bargaining agreements. However, the PLA also specified that, if the winning contractor had a collective bargaining agreement with the United Steelworkers union, which was not one of the 11 local unions, then the contractor was permitted to use its own workforce.

Allan Myers, L.P. (Myers) and J.D. Eckman, Inc. (Eckman), two nonunion contractors, filed protests with PennDOT, challenging the use of the PLA. Myers and Eckman argued that the PLA was unlawful, arbitrary and discriminatory, as it disfavored nonunion contractors and unduly favored contractors affiliated with United Steelworkers. PennDOT disagreed, arguing that case law supported the use of a PLA on a public works project. The protests were denied, and Myers and Eckman then appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Read more

Posted on January 17, 2019 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Protests, Com. of Pa., Court Decisions, PennDOT, Procurement Code, Project Labor Agreements Comments Off

Debriefing After Non-Selection Does Not Toll 7-Day Deadline For Bid Protest

The Pa. Procurement Code sets a strict deadline for bid protests – the protest must be filed within seven days after the protestant knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to the protest. If the protest is untimely, it will be rejected. The impact of this brightline rule was shown in a recent Commonwealth Court decision involving a late-filed protest.

In 2016, the Pa. Department of Human Services issued an RFP seeking proposals from managed care organizations to implement a managed care program for physical health and long-term services for the elderly and disabled. After evaluation of proposals, the Department notified one of the bidders, UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc., that it was not selected. Thereafter, the Department conducted a debriefing with UnitedHealthcare where it provided information concerning the strengths and weaknesses of UnitedHealthcare’s proposal. Unhappy with the outcome, UnitedHealthcare filed a protest, more than seven days after it was notified that it was not selected, but within seven days of the debriefing. The Department denied the protest as untimely, and UnitedHealthcare filed an appeal with the Commonwealth Court. Read more

Posted on December 12, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Protests, Com. of Pa., Court Decisions, Procurement Code Comments Off

Are RFQs Immune From Protest Under The Procurement Code?

If you respond to a Request for Quotes (RFQ) issued by a Commonwealth department or agency, can you protest if the resulting purchase order is awarded to another bidder?

According to the Commonwealth’s Office of Administration, the answer is no. In a recent protest, the OA issued a letter which took the remarkable position that “‘Award’ under an RFQ merely results in a Purchase Order under an existing multiple-award contract; therefore an RFQ is not the solicitation or award of a contract, and cannot be protested.”

Needless to say, this position is not supported by a fair reading of section 1711.1 of the Commonwealth Procurement Code which allows an aggrieved bidder or prospective bidder to protest the solicitation or award of a state contract. Certainly, a purchase order that is part of a multiple-award contract is nonetheless a contract; indeed, without issuance of a purchase order, the multiple-award contract is essentially meaningless. Likewise, an RFQ is a solicitation for a quote which may result in a contract – i.e., the purchase order.

Posted on September 7, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Protests, Com. of Pa., Procurement Code Comments Off

Pennsylvania Initiates Disparity Study For Small Diverse Business Program

In June 2017, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania initiated a disparity study that will provide information to help the Department of General Services (DGS) implement the Pennsylvania’s Small Diverse Business Program. The expected completion date for the disparity study is September 2018.

The study will include analyses of the participation of minority-, women-, disabled-, veteran-, and LGBT-owned businesses in prime contracts and subcontracts awarded by DGS during the period from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2016.

DGS has created a webpage highlighting the disparity study, with materials and a description of study team members.

The materials presented at the disparity study’s kickoff meeting can be found here.

An FAQ on the disparity study can be found here.

Posted on August 17, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Com. of Pa., DBE/MBE/WBE, DGS Comments Off

No-Bid Busing Contracts Cost School Districts An Extra $53.7 Million Over State Reimbursement

According to recent audits conducted by the Pa. Department of the Auditor General, Pennsylvania school districts spent at least $53.7 million in excess of the state’s transportation reimbursement formula through the use of no-bid busing contracts.

The conclusion of the Auditor General was based on audits of about 450 of the state’s 500 public school districts. As a result, Auditor General Eugene DePasquale called on the Pa. General Assembly to mandate competitive bidding for such transportation services, saying:

To get the best possible price and ensure transparency for taxpayers, student transportation contracts should be re-bid every time they are up for renewal. I’m calling on the General Assembly to enact legislation to ensure school districts are getting the best possible price by requiring them to seek competitive bids for transportation services. Amending the Public School Code to require schools to competitively bid transportation services will improve transparency and could put more money in our classrooms.

The Auditor General press release issued on May 12, 2016, can be found here. A PennLive story on the Auditor General’s findings can be found here.

Posted on June 21, 2016 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Com. of Pa., Public School Code Comments Off

Executive Order Prohibits Discrimination On The Basis Of Sexual Orientation Or Gender Identity Or Expression By Contractors Doing Business With State

On April 7, 2016, Pa. Governor Tom Wolf signed a new Executive Order establishing that future Commonwealth of Pennsylvania contracts must ensure that contractors doing business with the state will not discriminate in the award of subcontracts or supply contracts, or in hiring, promotion, or other labor matters, on the basis of sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. The Executive Order also mandates that contractors receiving state funds must have, as a condition of payment, a written sexual harassment policy and that employees of the contractor are aware of the policy. Read more

Posted on June 7, 2016 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Com. of Pa., DGS Comments Off

Minimum Wage Increased For Employees Of Certain State Contractors

On March 7, 2016, Governor Tom Wolf signed an Executive Order that raises the minimum wage to $10.15 an hour for employees of certain state contractors.

The employees covered the Executive Order include:

Employees who: (1) directly perform services or construction; or (2) directly perform services for the Commonwealth and are employed by a lessor of property to the Commonwealth; or (3) spend at least 20 percent of their working time in a given work week performing an ancillary service called for in a new lease of property or contract for services or construction exceeding the applicable small purchase threshold entered into with a Commonwealth agency under the jurisdiction of the Governor, including bilateral modifications to existing such leases or contracts, after the effective date of this Executive Order.

According to a 6ABC Action News report:

[The Executive Order] also will affect a narrow set of state contracts – potentially 109 vendors that provide janitorial, landscaping, delivery and food preparation services – that does not include hospitals, nursing care or state universities, administration officials said. The overall cost to the state and its contractors was projected at just above $4 million.

Executive Order No. 2016-02, which takes effect on July 1, 2016, for employees of state contractors, can be found here.