This article is an excerpt from The Art of Tendering: A Global Due Diligence Guide, which is available for purchase.
In its December 2016 decision in Cyriacks Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings dismissed a bid protest after finding no evidence that the Department of Transportation had acted arbitrarily in rejecting all bids and requiring a new bidding process. The case dealt with a Request for Proposals (RFP) for wildlife and environmental support services that attracted pre-bid confusion over the required pricing structure for the bids.
While the Department attempted to address these concerns by issuing an addendum with further pricing instructions, it was clear, after reviewing the pricing in the bids, that some of the bidders remained confused about the instructions. The Department therefore rejected the initial price submissions and instructed bidders to rebid based on the revised instructions.
The complainant, Cyriacks Environmental Consulting Services (referred to in the decision as CECOS), was originally identified as the winning bidder and brought a bid protest after the initial price submissions were rejected. However, the Court dismissed the CECOS complaint after finding no evidence that the Department had acted improperly:
Although the evidence shows that CECOS may suffer some competitive disadvantage because competing vendors were informed of the lowest “bottom line” price they would have to beat, it does not support a determination that Respondent’s decisions to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require the vendors to submit new price proposals were contrary to competition. To that point, in Addendum 5, Respondent substantially restructured the Section 6 Bid Sheet and also amended the Bid Sheet comprising the other price proposal sections in Exhibit C, so that CECOS’ and the other vendors’ price proposals submitted in response to Addendum 5 may have substantially changed from those submitted in response to Addendum 1. In any event, it cannot be concluded that Respondent’s decisions to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require submittal of new price proposals are contrary to competition such that they should be overturned in this proceeding.
The Court ultimately concluded that the complainant failed to prove that the Department’s decision to reject the initial bids and re-tender for revised pricing was contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
While the bid protest was ultimately rejected, this case serves as a good example of the importance of ensuring clear pricing instructions to avoid downstream confusion, cancellations, and bid protest challenges.
