Protest of Award of On-Line Games Production and Operation Services Contract, Bid No. 95-X-20175, Matter of
| Decision Date | 17 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | ON-LINE,X-20175 |
| Citation | 279 N.J.Super. 566,653 A.2d 1145 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the PROTEST OF the AWARD OF theGAMES PRODUCTION AND OPERATION SERVICES CONTRACT, BID NO. 95- |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Clive S. Cummis, Newark, for appellant Autotote Lottery Corp. (Sills, Cummis, Zuckerman, Radin, Tischman, Epstein & Gross, attorneys; Mr. Cummis, of counsel; Kenneth F. Oettle and Paul P. Josephson, on the brief).
Joel H. Sterns, Trenton, for appellant GTECH Corp. (Sterns & Weinroth, Trenton; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Newark; and Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC, of the Washington, DC, bar, attorneys; Mr. Sterns, of counsel; Mark D. Schorr, Trenton, on the brief).
Patrick D. Kennedy, Trenton, for respondent Automated Wagering Intern., Inc. (McCarter & English, Newark; Picco, Mack, Herbert, Trenton; and Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly, New York City, of the New York Bar, attorneys; Christopher W. Jones, New York City, of counsel; William T. Reilly, Newark and Mr. Kennedy, of counsel and on the brief; Maeve E. Cannon, Trenton, Sean Byrnes, Newark and James E. McGuire, Trenton, on the brief).
Deputy Atty. Gen. Ellen M. Casey, Trenton, for respondent Treasurer (Deborah T. Poritz, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, attorney; Joseph L. Yannotti, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel; Ms. Casey, on the brief).
Before Judges BRODY, LONG, and ARNOLD M. STEIN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
LONG, J.A.D.
This appeal arises out of the State Treasurer's award of a five-year contract to respondent, Automated Wagering International, Incorporated (AWI), for equipment, materials and services to implement and operate the on-line gaming system of the New Jersey State Lottery Commission. Appellants, GTECH Corporation (GTECH), the incumbent vendor, and Autotote Lottery Corporation (Autotote), challenge the Treasurer's determination that AWI's bid conformed to the Request for Proposals (RFP). Autotote also challenges the Treasurer's decision that its bid was non-conforming. We reverse the determination that AWI's bid was conforming, affirm the determination that Autotote's bid was non-conforming, and remand the case to the Treasurer to decide whether to award the contract to GTECH or to rebid it.
On August 9, 1993, the Division of Purchase and Property issued an RFP for On- Line Games Production and Operation Services, Division of Lottery, Contract No. 95-X-20175. The 250-page RFP contained many requirements; only those which are relevant to this appeal will be set forth.
The technical section relating to terminals stated that: "The Contractor must provide terminals that meet the requirements as specified below." Those requirements included:
The Contractor must provide (a) customer visual display unit(s), for each on-line Agent location. Due to the wide diversity of space in Agent locations, the visual display unit may be terminal mounted in some locations, or mounted elsewhere (wall, pole, window, etc.) in others. All unit messages must be clearly visible from fifteen feet (15') by customers. Special features (scrolling, flashing, etc.) are welcomed and must be described fully.
[RFP § 6.3.2 (emphasis added).]
The purpose of a customer display visible from fifteen feet is advertising. It is meant to catch the attention of other individuals at the premises at which lottery tickets are sold and induce them to buy. Each bidder had to
respond to this section by addressing each and every portion of subsection 6.3 of the RFP, entitled, "Terminals." The response must ensure fulfillment of the Scope of Work. In doing so, the bidder must ensure that all terms cited below are incorporated in his response.
Bidders must provide complete documentation on the terminals proposed, including pictorial exhibits and the technical specifications for the terminal equipment including, but not limited to, the functional capabilities and physical and environmental characteristics for each proposed terminal.
[RFP § 7.5.2 (emphasis added).]
In addition, the bids had to clarify which terminal features were included and which were excluded from the basic bid price.
RFP § 6.9 incorporated a "Big Bang" approach to convert from the current lottery system to the new system. "Big Bang" was defined as:
A form of terminal network conversion in which the new agent terminals are installed gradually in retail locations but do not take over sales until a complete cutover following the last sales day on the existing Contract. All new agent terminals go into production on the same day. The old terminal can then be removed from the premises.
[RFP § 4.0.]
RFP § 6.9 further explained that the new contractor's secondary site would be used to stage and test the new system, and that operations would proceed from November 24, 1994, supported only by that site until the primary site could be fitted out and installed. The RFP envisioned that the remote backup location would serve as the primary site for the first six months of implementation. During that period, GTECH, the incumbent vendor, would remove its equipment now located adjacent to Lottery headquarters in Lawrenceville, and the new vendor would prepare and install the central processing systems that would eventually become the primary operations site. In other words, when the primary site became operational, the secondary site was to assume its original backup function.
During the conversion when the secondary site was initially operating the Lottery, RFP § 6.9 required:
For the period between November 24, 1994, and the availability of the data center at Lottery Headquarters as the primary site, the Contractor must provide sufficient backup capabilities equal to the current contingency plan: A hot backup system for the active primary system, and the ability to restore service within seventy-two (72) hours following a disaster at the single processing site.
RFP § 6.9 also required each bidder to propose a specific implementation plan for conversion, with a detailed discussion of, among other things, the installation and testing of the system's hardware and software components and the training of agents and Lottery personnel. Specifically, RFP § 6.9 stated:
If the Contractor proposed (an) alternative(s) to the specified implementation approach and schedule, it (they) must meet or exceed all the requirements specified in the RFP resulting in this Contract.
The Contractor is required to carry out their proposed implementation plan. The plan must detail hardware production capability, software development, and installation and testing of hardware and software components.
The implementation plan must also detail the structuring of the network and the installation of the network through the combined efforts of the communications carrier, the State, and the Contractor....
Among other things specifically required to be included in the implementation plan were plans for: production and installation of the hardware; upgrade of the communications network; design, development, installation and testing of software; and on-site installation and transition methodology. Also required were personnel training plans and a delineation of the breakdown of responsibility between the contractor and the State.
The preparation and submission instructions relative to implementation, like the instructions relative to terminals, mandated that the "bidder must respond to this section by addressing each and every portion of subsection 6.9 of the RFP." This included the details of the bidders plan to achieve the aims of the RFP. Alternative plans were permissible so long as they met or exceeded all installation and testing requirements of the RFP, and could be shown to be otherwise favorable when compared to the envisioned approach.
Among the general provisions of the RFP were the following:
Failure to furnish all required information or to follow the proposal format specified in this RFP may disqualify a proposal. However, the Director of [the] Division of Purchase and Property may waive any nonmaterial deviation in a proposal. The Director's waiver of a nonmaterial deviation shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the proposing bidder from full compliance with the contract requirements if the proposing bidder is awarded the Contract resulting from this procurement.
[RFP § 3.18 (emphasis added).]
RFP § 3.25 (emphasis added) stated in part:
Bidders who submit a proposal in response to this RFP may be required to give an oral presentation of their proposal to the State. The purpose of such a presentation is to provide an opportunity for the bidder to clarify or elaborate on his proposal. Original submissions cannot be supplemented, changed or corrected in any way.
The general proposal preparation and submission instructions section stated:
The bid response proposal is the State's primary vehicle for obtaining essential information on which contract award decisions are based.
Bidders are cautioned that their failure to submit the information required may result in a determination that the bidder's proposal is non-responsive to RFP requirements.
....
All instructions contained in the RFP should be met in order to qualify for consideration for award. Proposals which do not meet or comply with all instructions may be considered non-responsive.
[RFP § 7.1 (emphasis added).]
For instructions as to proposal contents and evaluation, RFP §§ 7.3 and 8.4 (emphasis added) provided:
Each bidder is expected to provide the Lottery with information, evidence and demonstrations which will make possible the selection of the bidder to be awarded the Contract in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:34-12(d) [now (f) ].... Bidders are given wide latitude in the degree of detail they offer or the extent to which they reveal plans, designs, systems, processes and procedures. At...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
... ... This matter comes before the court on motions for summary ... in securing a wastewater treatment contract from PVSC, EPIC filed this action against PVSC ... DIVISION of Local Government Services State Administrative Agency DLGS ... 10. Award" of the negotiated contract after approval ... \xC2" ... dt/d increment to the entire sludge production of PVSC. A single vendor may propose a system ... In the Matter of On Line Games Production, 279 N.J.Super. 566, 595, 653 ... ...
-
In re Request for Proposals #17DPP00144
... 454 N.J.Super. 527 186 A.3d 332 In the MATTER OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #17DPP00144, Employee nefits: Pharmacy Benefit Management Contract. DOCKET NO. A–4751–16T1 Superior Court of New ... central question in this challenge to the award of the more than six-billion-dollar State t for pharmacy benefit services is whether the winning bidder's statement ... discounts and improved rebates." The Bid Protest Based on the unanimous vote of the Evaluation ... " Matter of Protest of Award of On–Line Games Prod. & Operation Servs. Contract, Bid No ... ...
-
Statewide Hi-Way Safety, Inc. v. New Jersey Dept. of Transp., HI-WAY
... ... Before us, Statewide contends that the award of the bid to Crisdel should be reversed because ... late to order rebidding or to award the contract to another bidder. Any order of this court to ... of Island Heights and Consolidated Waste Services, Inc., 138 N.J. 307, 313, 650 A.2d 748 (1994) ... Local Public Contracts Law); In re On-Line Games Production and Operation Services Contract, ... To that end, we now hold, as a matter of law, that the failure to honor the statutory ... ...
-
Bodies by Lembo, Inc. v. County of Middlesex
... ... to have the trial court order that the contract be awarded to plaintiff ... On ... 12, 1994, prior to any announcement of an award, Norcia sent a "letter of protest" to Jack Garber ... and agreed to a disposition of the matter by summary judgment ... After ... In re On-Line Games Contract, 279 N.J.Super. 566, 590, 653 A.2d ... solicited bids for garbage collection services for contracts of one, two, three and five years' ... ...