Contract Procurement Committee Update - July 7, 2015
Appendix B working group – IT template
Legislation (S.3450-C Funke/A.2029-D Hevesi) supported—and advocated for—by The Business Council that would require agencies to provide certain information to unsuccessful bidders and provide a timetable for vendor debriefs passed in both the Senate and Assembly.
Specifically, the bill would:
- Require that bidders be advised of the completion of the selection process within 15 days of an agency’s selection of a winning bid and prior to its submission to OSC.
- Require that, with regard to centralized contracts, bidders be advised of the completion of the selection process within 15 days of the Office of General Service’s selection of a winning bid.
- Stipulate that the opportunity for a bidder to seek a debriefing must be state in the solicitation, which will provide a reasonable time for requesting a debrief.
- Require that, in contracts of $500,000 or more, states agencies shall provide an unsuccessful bidder an in-person or video-conferenced debrief. The debrief shall include: written explanation that includes the following: the reasons that the proposal or bid submitted by the unsuccessful offerer was not selected for award; the qualitative and quantitative analysis employed by the agency in assessing the relative merits of each bid; the application of each of the selection criteria to each bid; and why the winning bid was selected. The bill also requires agencies to provide unsuccessful offerers, upon request, with a reasonable opportunity to discuss the written explanation with agency personnel who were involved in the bid evaluation process.
- Require that, in contracts less than $500,000, state agencies provide to unsuccessful offerers, upon request, an in-person or video-conferenced debrief that includes the reasons that the proposal submitted by the unsuccessful offerer was not selected for an award.
An Office of the State Comptroller program bill (S.5713-B DeFrancisco/A.7513-C Peoples-Stokes) supported by The Business Council also passed in both houses. Specifically, the bill would:
- Require agencies to provide unsuccessful offerors with a reasonable opportunity for a discussion with agency personnel who were involved in and are knowledgeable about the procurement evaluation process and provide such offerors with certain information in the debriefing.
- Require agencies to enroll with the OSC to access the vendor responsibility system, and require agencies to provide vendors with information on how to access and utilize the system.
- Allow agencies to undertake competitive negotiations in cases where two or more offerers are deemed susceptible for being selected, when the agency has determined that using a competitive negotiation will maximize the agency’s ability to obtain best value.
- Stipulate that agencies may require vendors and/or subcontractors bidding on a solicitation to submit a vendor responsibility form in contracts where disclosure is not otherwise required.
- Authorize the commissioner or a state agency—after a determination by the comptroller— to develop and use alternative procurement methods in cases where the state would be better served than under currently available methods, when such a method could be applied on a competitive and fair basis and when it contains an evaluation method that considers cost and qualitative evaluation factors. Also requires the commissioner or state agency to submit a report assessing the validity of the procurement method by the mid-point of the contract.
- Increase the threshold for the requirement for construction bonds to $200,000 (from $100,000).
- Change “technology” to “information technology” and define it to mean either a good or a service or a combination thereof used in the application of any computer or electronic information equipment or interconnected system.
- Empower the OSC to approve an awarded contract if an agency’s non-compliance to state purchasing rules was a non-material deviation (one that did not favor a potential vendor or compromise the fairness of the competitive process).
- Require performance bonds for “major installations”— projects requiring building construction or site work or an installation where the total character of the work is not construction but instead the purchase, and installation of a large piece of equipment—(ex. MRI) valued at $1,000,000 or more.
- Require OGS to submit a report on savings achieved through centralized contracts.
- Increase the revenue threshold for contracts needing OSC approval to $25,000 (from $10,000).
- Clarify that piggybacking is intended to benefit the state and is not intended to sidestep competitive bidding.
- Define construction-related services for SUNY and CUNY to mean studies, surveys, construction management, construction inspection, excavation and similar efforts associated with construction or the acquisition of public works.