HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-05 Min - Board (7) LAW OFFICES OF
SKJERVEN, MORRILL, MACPHERSON. FRANKLIN 6 FRIEL
L 26 METRO DRIVE. SUITE 700
'HER OFFICES: SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95110
��✓✓AUSTIN.TEXAS
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA (408) 453-9200 FACSIMILE: (406)453-7979
June 5, 1996
Mr. J/CA
mig
PresiBoard of Directors
Truc PUD
1157ass Rd.
Truc610
Dear :
We represent Ilex Systems, Inc. of Milpitas, Califonria and wish to formally protest the award
of the Truckee Donner PUD (TDPUD)Electric Department SCADA System to Quindar Products of
Canada(QPL). The irregularities in the bidding process form the basis for this protest. Specifically,
the sealed bid prices appear to have been ignored, the parties received differential treatment after the
bids were opened and the bid evaluation process is subject to a conflict of interest.
The public bid prices were:
ILEX $113,053.
Quindar $196,950.
Despite this difference of over $83,000 in the bids, Quindar received the award. (Ilex was
orally told it would be recommended to the Board at its May 1 meeting as a result of the evaluation of
the opened bids.) We believe this result raises three troubling issues:
1. The formal Bid Specification gave all vendors ample time to call TDPUD for
clarification on any and all issues prior to the bid. Ilex found the Bid Specification sufficient to
prepare a complete bid. There is no reason why Quindar could not also have submitted a complete
bid. We see no reason why all bids should not have been evaluated based upon what was submitted
at the time the bids were opened.
2. Moreover, Quindar was apparently approached by TDPUD and offered the
opportunity to reformulate the terms of its bid after the bids were opened. No general public
rebidding process was announced nor were all bidders asked to address the same post-bid concerns.
Quindar has apparently used the opportunity to reduce the price difference between its bid and the
Ilex bid.
3. We understand the Quindar bid now includes a proposal for services by NCPA. As an
NCPA representative is involved in evaluating the bids, a serious conflict of interest appears to be
u
SKJERVEN, MORRILL. MACPHERSON, FRANKLIN 8 FRIEL
Mr. J. Ronald Hemig
June 5, 1996
Page 2
present. (Please refer to the evaluation table attached to the TDPUD Staff Report tabled at the May
15, 1996 Board meeting.)
In addition to these procedural irregularities, noneconomic factors also favor the Ilex
proposal:
1. Much importance has been focused on the ability to connect real-time data to NCPA.
Ilex offered four separate solutions, all of which are industry standard,well documented and easily
implemented to connect with NCPA or other agencies. The Quindar solution must connect to a
proprietary protocol QNET that no other vender has access to, or may implement. It seems to us that
an open implementation of the NCPA interface is in the best interests of TDPUD and its customers,
as well as other NCPA members.
2. Ilex is a California company that has been working with TDPUD for two years helping
its engineers develop and refine technical requirements. Ilex has more than 200 systems installed,
including seven systems installed with organizations with operating structures similar to the
NCPA/TDPUD operating structure. Ilex manufactures all equipment in Milpitas, California, meets
`Buy American' qualifications and can provide excellent local support. Ilex does not have to depend
on lower tier vendors and subcontractors to maintain your system.
We request you carefully review the acquisition process which was utilized in this
procurement, and make the award, as is appropriate, to Ilex Systems.
Very truly yours,
44.arc David Freed
MDF/kf
cc: Joseph R. Aguera
Robert A. Jones
James A. Maass
Patricia S. Sutter
Peter L. Holzmeister
Steven Hollabaugh
aniel L. Scharre
oger diFate
Richard E. Godfrey
G:\WORK\CORP\4170001\TRUCKEE.PUD