List Of Exempt Steel Products Issued For 2022

On February 19, 2022, the Pennsylvania Department of General Services (DGS) issued the list of machinery and equipment steel products which are exempt for calendar year 2022 under the PA Steel Products Procurement Act. The list was published in Read more

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 Read more

PA Supreme Court Clarifies The Meaning Of "Cost" Under the PA Steel Products Procurement Act

The PA Steel Products Procurement Act was first enacted in 1978. At its core, the Act provides that any steel products used or supplied on a public works project in Pennsylvania must be U.S. steel products. Under the Act, a product Read more

Can A Public Owner Recover Legal Fees From A Bidder Who Loses A Challenge To A Bid Rejection?

Can a public entity include in its bid instructions the right to recover its legal fees from a bidder if the bidder's bid protest lawsuit is unsuccessful? In the course of providing advice recently to a client, I came across Read more

List Of Exempt Steel Products Issued For 2020

On June 27, 2020, the Pennsylvania Department of General Services (DGS) issued the list of machinery and equipment steel products which are exempt for calendar year 2020 under the PA Steel Products Procurement Act.  The list was published in Read more

•••••

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

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Email
Posted on December 12, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Protests, Com. of Pa., Court Decisions, Procurement Code Comments Off on Debriefing After Non-Selection Does Not Toll 7-Day Deadline For Bid Protest

Does Separations Act Prohibit Use Of Best Value Contracting For Construction Of Philadelphia Public Buildings?

Now that “best value” contracting is officially the new game in town for City of Philadelphia procurement, with the issuance of the new best value regulations, it’s worth asking whether the longstanding Separations Act precludes the City from using best value contracting for contracts for the construction of public buildings.

The Separations Act provides that, for public building construction in Pennsylvania in excess of $4,000, all public owners must prepare separate specifications, solicit separate bids, and award separate contracts for general construction, plumbing, heating and ventilating, and electrical work, with the additional requirement that the award must be made to the “lowest responsible bidder.”

The Separations Act unquestionably applies to the City. With a mandate to award the contract to “the lowest responsible bidder,” the Separations Act would appear to prohibit the City from using a “best value” standard to award construction contracts for a City public building project. Of course, time will tell whether City officials and the courts will agree with this viewpoint.

If you need assistance on a Separations Act issue, feel free to call or email me for a no-cost consultation.  I’ll be happy to assist in anyway possible.

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Email
Posted on November 21, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Best Value Contracting, City of Phila., Separations Act Comments Off on Does Separations Act Prohibit Use Of Best Value Contracting For Construction Of Philadelphia Public Buildings?

Does PA Steel Act Prohibit Public Owner From Specifying Foreign-Made Cast Iron Boiler?

The PA Steel Products Procurement Act requires that all steel products (including cast iron products) supplied on a Pennsylvania public works project must be made from U.S.-made steel.

Recently, a school district’s contract specified a cast iron boiler manufactured in Europe as the so-called “basis of design.” No domestic cast iron boilers were permitted under the boiler specification. Is this practice legal under the PA Steel Products Procurement Act? Can a public owner simply override the Steel Act with a proprietary specification for a name-brand product which is made outside the U.S. but which is preferred by the owner’s design team? Read more

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Email
Posted on October 24, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Steel Products Act Comments Off on Does PA Steel Act Prohibit Public Owner From Specifying Foreign-Made Cast Iron Boiler?

Disappointed Bidder Lacks Standing To Challenge P3 Contract Award By Non-Commonwealth Entity

In a recent case of first impression, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has affirmed a lower court ruling that a disappointed bidder lacked standing to challenge a contract awarded by a non-Commonwealth entity under the Public-Private Transportation Partnership Act (P3 Act).

In April 2016, the Northampton County General Purpose Authority issued a Request for Proposals under the P3 Act for the Northampton County Bridge Renewal Program for the replacement, rehabilitation, and maintenance of 33 bridges in Northampton County. Four bidders responded, including Clearwater Construction, Inc./Northampton County Bridge Partners LLC and Kriger Construction, Inc.  Ultimately, the Authority selected Kriger to negotiate a public-private partnership agreement to develop the bridge renewal program. Read more

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Email
Posted on September 28, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Protests, Court Decisions, Public Private Partnership Comments Off on Disappointed Bidder Lacks Standing To Challenge P3 Contract Award By Non-Commonwealth Entity

City Of Allentown Permitted To Use RFP Process For Waste Services Contract

In a decision issued on July 20, 2017, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upheld the City of Allentown’s use of the Request for Proposals (RFP) process in a contract award.

In 2015, Allentown issued an RFP for the award of a long-term solid waste and recyclables contract.  Previously, Allentown had used an Invitation to Bid (ITB) process for the same contract. When a contract award was ultimately made to Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc., two bidders filed for an injunction, arguing that Allentown’s use of the RFP process was contrary to law. The trial court denied the injunction and an appeal was taken. Read more

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Email
Posted on September 19, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Court Decisions Comments Off on City Of Allentown Permitted To Use RFP Process For Waste Services Contract
« Previous   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36 37   Next »
WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com