Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Gouhari <br />Page 2 <br />fanuary 22, 2016 <br />In general, issues of responsiveness are determined by looking exclusively at the face of <br />the bid, (Great West Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unif, Sch. Dist. (2010) 187 Ca1.App.4th <br />1425, 1453.) Therefore, allegations that go beyond the face of the bid are generally not <br />relevant for determining responsiveness. <br />In addition, allegations of nonresponsiveness must be evaluated from a practical, rather <br />than speculative or hyperteclmical perspective, and based on the public interest: <br />"They must also be viewed in light of the public interest, rather than the <br />private interest of a disappointed bidder. It certainly would amount to a <br />disservice to the public if a losing bidder were to be permitted to comb <br />through the bid proposal... of the low bidder after the fact, (and] cancel the <br />low bid on minor technicalities, with the hope ofsecuring acceptance of <br />his, a higher bid. Such construction would be adverse to the best interests <br />of the public and contrary to public policy. " (Bay Cities, supra, at I189; <br />internal quotation marks omitted.) <br />From this legal framework, we consider the two basis for QTD's bid protest. <br />IL ANALYSIS <br />A. Citv Did Not Receive Three (3) Proposals <br />Quality Traffic Data, LLC's bid protest alleges that the awarding of the contract should <br />be halted because the City did not receive three (3) proposals in response to the RFP. <br />QDT cites no authority for such a proposition and the City is not aware of any such legal <br />impediment to the award of the contract on this basis. In fact, the RFP on its face states <br />as section III (I) that the "City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted <br />and no representation is made hereby that any agreement will be awarded pursuant to this <br />RFP or otherwise." Furthermore, there is no requirement in the RFP itself that the receipt <br />of three proposals is a condition precedent for award of the contract. <br />B, TSI Provided Additional Fee Schedule <br />The other basis for QTD's protest is based on the alleged "confusion to the public" <br />caused by TSI's submission of another fee schedule. QTD does not provide any <br />indication as to how or what mariner the fee schedule causes confusion. Nonetheless, this <br />is rejected inasmuch as the fee schedule was submitted after the selection was made and <br />does not impact the decision of the selection committee, The fee schedule merely <br />clarified the original fee schedule submitted in TSI's winning bid <br />25A -6 <br />