360B86100
Subject Indexes of Protest
Appeal Determinations Issued
From 1974 through 1984
J. KENT HOLLAND, JR.
Grants, Contracts and General Law Division
Office of General Counsel (LE-132G)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-5313
-------
-------
PREFACE
In the course of administering its financial assistance
programs, EPA has decided over 700 bid protest appeals chal-
lenging assistance recipients' procurement actions. These
determinations were made pursuant to the EPA protest appeal
procedures set forth at 40 C.F.R. §35.939 (assistance awarded
prior to May 12, 1982), 40 C.F.R. Part 33, May 12, 1982
Intermim Final Rules (assistance awarded between May 12, 1982
and March 28, 1983) and 40 C.F.R. Part 33, March 28, 1983
Final Rules (assistance awarded on or after March 28, 1983).
Most of the appeals have involved awards of construction
contracts by assistance recipients under Title II of the
Clean Water Act, Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant
Program. There have also been a number of appeals by Archi-
tectural/Engineering (A/E) firms concerning award of A/E
contracts. In the past two years, there have been two appeal
determinations concerning procurement of services for Remedial
Actions under the Comprehensive Environomental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERLCA).
To date, seven subject indexes of EPA appeal determinations
have been published in the Federal Register. The first index,
listing Regional Administrator protest appeal determinations
issued during the period 1974 through 1977, was published at
43 FR 29086-95 (July 5, 1978). This was supplemented by the
index of 1978 determinations published at 44 FR 25812-18
(May 2, 1979), the index of 1979 determinations published at
45 FR 58770-74 (September 4, 1980), the index of 1980 determin-
ations published at 46 FR 30476-80 (June 8, 1981), the index
of 1981 and 1982 determinations published at 49 FR 36004
(September 13, 1984), the index of 1983 determinations published
at 50 FR 4148 (January 29, 1985) and the index of 1984 determin-
ations published at 50 FR 23061 (May 30, 1985). Each publi-
cation digests only the determinations issued during the
designated year or years. Consequently, in order to completely
research a subject, it has been necessary to locate that
subject in seven different issues of the Federal Register.
To make it easier to research the EPA determinations, we
have constructed this index of 1974 through 1984 determinations.
This has been accomplished by cutting apart the publications
of the Federal Register, reorganizing the subjects into two
principal categories, and placing them into this consolidated
format.
-------
An eighth index has- been published at 51 Fed. Reg. 32038
(September 8, 1986) and is included immediately following the
Table .of Contents to this Volume. It digests the decisions
issued during 1985.
This volume has been prepared with the intent of making
it easier to research the large number of protest appeal
determinations issued by EPA.. Used correctly, it can save
time in analyzing and deciding matters under protest. The
descriptive pareritheticals describing the determinations
are short and are meant only to assist you in focusing your
research. Of course, before relying on any determination
reported in the Federal Registers and this volume, you should
read the full text of the determination to ascertain how it
may apply to a given situation.
As a further convenience, for EPA personnel (especially
attorneys) responsible for completing information forms
necessary to enter data into the PATRACS computer system, a
copy of the Grants Law Index of bid protest and procurement
issues is included immediately before the Table of Contents
to this volume. Questions and comments concerning use of
the computer should be referred to Anthony Guadagno, Esq.
(FTS-382-5313).
J. KENT HOLLAND, JR.
-------
LOCATING A SUBJECT IN THIS VOLUME:
The subjects are digested under two separate alphabetical
listings. Substantive procurement subjects such as "Bids,"
"Responsibility" and "Specifications" are listed under the
primary heading "Procurement." Procedural appeal natters
such as "Burden of Proof," "Jurisdiction" and"Tine Limitations"
are listed under the primary heading Appeals - Procedural
Matters."
OBTAINING COPIES OF DETERMINATIONS;
Determinations may be examined and obtained from the EPA
Offices of Regional Counsel. They may also be examined at
the Law Library at EPA Headquarters and may be obtained from
the Office of General Counsel at EPA Headquarters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT;
J. KENT HOLLAND, JR., Esq. or ANTHONY F. GUADAGNO, Esq.,
Office of General Counsel (LE-132G), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460; (202)382-5313.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF 1985 DETERMINATIONS i
SUBJECT INDEX OF PROCEDURAL APPEAL MATTERS .... 1
Burden of Proof 3
Choice of Law > 5
Deferral of Procurement Action 8
Exhaustion of Adminstrative Remedy 8
Harmless Error 8
Jurisdiction 9
Procedure 12
Rational Bases . . 16
Reconsideration 19
Regulations 21
Review by EPA .....' . . 22
Sua Sponte Review . 23
Standing 25
Summary Disposition . 28
Time Limitations 31
SUBJECT INDEX OF SUBSTANTIVE PROCUREMENT MATTERS
Architect/Engineer Procurement 43
Award Prime Contract 44
Bids 44
General 44
Addenda 44
Alternative 45
Ambiguity 45
Deduct Items 45
Evaluation 45
Extension of Bids 49
Irregularities 49
Late 49
-------
Mistake 49
Modification •. - 50
Qualified 50
Seal 50
Severable 50
Signature 51
Unbalanced 51
Bid Shopping 51
Bidders 52
Bonds 52
Buy American 54
Competition 56
Conflict of Interest 56
Design Decisions 57
Equal Employment Opportunity 59
Enforcement . 60
Engineering Judgement ... 61
Experience Requirements 64
Formal Advertising 65
Grantee Responsibility 65
Innovative Technologies 66
Invitation for Bids 66
Ambiguity . . ' 4 66
Defective 67
License . . . 68
Listing Subcontractors .... 68
Minority and Women's Business ..... 69
Negotiated Procurement . 72
Patents 72
Prequalification 72
Program Integrity 74
Rejection of All Bids - 75
-------
Responsibility • 77
Responsiveness . 80
Small Business 84
Specifications 85
General 85
Brand Name or Equal 85
Competition 85
Design 85
Defective 85
Local Preference 86
Minimum Need 86
Nonrestrictive 86
(See also, Unduly Restrictive)
Performance Based 89
Salient Requirement 89
Sole Source 90
Unduly Restrictive 92
(see also, Nonrestrictive)
Subcontract Award 94
Waiver 97
APPENDIX (MBE/WBE Guidance, Bid Protests Chapter. . 99
-------
-------
GRANTS LAW
' BID PROTEST APPEALS
I N D
X
GRL-200-100-000
GRL-200-200-000
GRL-200-400-000
GRL-200-500-000
GRL-200-550-000
GRL-200-600-000
GRL-200-625-000
GRL-200-650-000
GRL-200-700-000
GRL-200-750-000
GRL-200-775-000
GRL-200-800-000
GRL-200-850-000
GRL-200-900-000
Burden of Proof
Disnissal
Jurisdiction
Parties to Appeal
Procedures
Rational Basis Test
Recipient Determination
Reconsideration
Reaulations
btanaara ot Review (See, this heading - Rational Basis Test)
Standing
States
Sua Spcnte Review
Sunmary Disposition
Time Limitations
GRL-780-000-000
GRL-780-025-000
<
GRL-780-050-000
* GRL-780-100-000
GRL-780-100-600
GRL-780-100-700
PRCXUREMENT
Antitrust
Architect/Engineer Services (See also this heading - Services)
Bid Rigging (See this heading - Antitrust)
Bid Shopping (See this heading - Listing Requiranent)
Bidders and Offerers
Nonexistent
Rrejudice
-------
GRL-730-000-000
GRL-780-100-000
GRL-780-100-800
GRL-780-125-000
GRL-780-125-050
GRL-780-125-100
GRL-780-125-150
GRL-780-125-200
GRL-780-125-300
GRL-780-125-400
GRL-780-125-450
GRL-780-125-500
GRL-780-125-600
GRL-780-125-700
GRL-780-125-750
GRL-780-125-800
GRL-780-125-850
4
GRL-780-125-900
GRL-780-150^000
GRL-780-175-000
GRL-780-200-000
GBL-780-250-000
GRL-780-250-200
GKL-780-250-300
GRL-780-300-000
PROCUREMENT (continued)
Bidders and Offerees ( ' cinued)
ft-equalification
Responsibility (See this heading - Responsibility)
Bids
Acceptance Period
Alternate Bids
Base Bids
Cancellation of Solicitation
Evaluation
Late
Mistake
Modification
Preparation Cost
Qualified
Rejection of All Bids
Responsiveness "(See this heading - Responsiveness)
Time to Prepare
Unbalanced
Unit Pricing
Bonds
Buy American
Certified Recipient Procurement System
Competition
De Facto
Free and Open
Cost and Pricing Data
-------
GRL-780-000-000
GRL-780-350-000
GRL-780-400-000
GRL-780-400-400
GRL-780-400-800
GRL-780-475-000
GRL-780-500-000
GRL-780-550-000
GRL-780-600-000
GRL-780-600-100
GRL-780-600-200
GRL-780-600-500
GRL-780-600-600
GRL-780-600-700
GRL-780-600-800
GRL-780-600-900
*GRL-780-625-000
GRL-780-650rOOO
GRL-780-700-000
GRL-780-750-dOO
GRL-780-800-000
GRL-780-850-000
GRL-780-900-000
GRL-780-900-100
GRL-780-900-200
GRL-780-900-300
PROCUREMENT (continued)
Federal Procurement Principles
Formally Advertised
Invitation For Bid
Two-Step
Legal Services (See also the heading - Services)
Listing Requirement
Minority and Women's Business Enterprise Requirements
Negotiated
After Advertisement
Competitive Range
Minimum Requirements
Original Bid Price
Request for Proposal
Sole Source
Source Selection
Prior Approval of Contract Award
Protest Appeal (See BID PROTEST APPEALS)
Responsibility
Respons iveness
Services (See also this heading - Architect/Engineer Services;
Legal Services)
Small Business Enterprises
Small Purchase
Specifications
Ambiguous
Brand Nane
Design
-------
GRL-780-000-000
GRL-780-900-000
GRL-78 0-900-400
GRL-780-900^450
GRL-780-900-500
GRL-780-900-600
GRL-780-90 0-650
GRL-780-90 0-700
GRL-780-900-750
GRL-780-900-790
GRL-780-900-800
GRL-780-925-000
GRL-780-950-000
PROCUREMENT (continued)
Specifications (continued)
Engineering Judgment
Experience Requirements
Local ac In-State Preference
Minimum Need
Nonrestrictive
Oral Statements
Performance
Responsiveness (See this heading - Responsiveness)
Salient Requirements (See also this topic - Brand Name)
Single Material
State and Local Law
Subcontract Award
-------
Monday
September 8, 1986
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Protest Appeals of Recipients'
Procurement Actions Under Federal
Assistance Agreements; Subject Index
List of EPA Regional Administrator
Protest Appeal Determinations Issued
During 1985; Notice
-------
32038
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 173 / Monday. September 8. 1986 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-3074-3]
Protest Appeals of Recipients'
Procurement Actions Under Federal
Assistance Agreements; Subject Index
Ust of EPA Regional Administrator
Protest Appeal Determinations Issued
During 1985
This notice publishes the subject
index list of bid protest appeal decisions
issued by EPA Regional Administrators
during 1985. These determinations were
made pursuant to the EPA protest
procedures set forth at 40 CFR 35.939
(assistance awarded prior to May 1Z
1982), 40 CFR Part 33, May 12.1982
Interim Final Rules (assistance awarded
between May 12.1982 and March 28.
1983) and 40 CFR Part 33. March 28.1983
Final Rules (assistance awarded after
March 28,1983).
This is the Eighth EPA subject index
which lists only the decisions for the
year stated. The first index listing
Regional Administrator protest appeal
determinations issued during the period
1974 through 1977, was published at 43
FR 29086-95 (July 5,1978). This was
supplemented by the index of 1978
determinations published at 44 FR
25812-18 (May 2,1979). the index of 1979
determinations published at 45 FR
58770-74 (September 4.1980). the index
. of 1980 determinations published at 46
FR 30476-80 (June 8.1981). the index of
1981 and 1982 determination* published
at 49 FR 36004 (September 13.1984), the
index of 1983 decisions published at 50
FR 4148 (January 29,1985) and the index
of 1984 decisions published at 50 PR
23061 (May 30,1985).
The index lists. 71 appeal
determinations and 6 reconsideration
request determination* issued by the
EPA Regional Administrators in 1985.
The determinations are cited
informally with the names of the
assistance recipients and protestors
shortened and abbreviated for
administrative convenience. Each entry
begins by identifying the year the appeal
was decided and the sequential
determination number for the year. This
number is not part of the preferred
citation which should state the
following: Grantee, State, (EPA Region
, date of determination) (Protest
of ).
The issues have been divided into two
major subject headings and then
alphabetized. Procedural protest issues
are listed under the heading "Protest
Appeals;" substantive procurement
issues are listed under the heading
"Procurement"
Copies of specific protest appeal
determinations may be examined at or
obtained from the EPA Offices of
Regional Counsel or from the Office of
General Counsel in EPA headquarters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Kent Holland.Jr.. Esquire: Grants.
Contracts, and General Law Division
(LE-132G). Office of General Counsel.
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington. DC 20460; (202)
382-5313.
Dated: August 29,1986.
G«nld H. Yanada,
Acting Genera/ Counsel.
Bid Protest Appeals—Procedural
Matters
Burden of Proof
85:12 Orlando, FL (IV, 2-8-86KZ3rua
Owen Valve Co.) (burden shifts
throughout proceedings where unduly
restrictive specifications alleged).
85:49 Frederick. MD (IB. 9-17-85)/7LW
Co.) (shifting burden—where protester
alleges unduly restrictive specification
and shows that its equipment was
eliminated, grantee must show the
specification is necessary for
minimum performance needs and
show rational basis for rejecting
protester's equipment).
Choice of Law (See Procurement
Index—"State and Local Law")
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy
85:14 Lake Accotink Park, Fairfax VA
(ID. 2-22-45) (Lyons Const.) (protester
cannot raise new issue on appeal
which was not raised in original
protest to grantee).
85:19 Kankakee. IL (V. 3-28-85) (Mehta
&Assoc.) (issue not raised during
initial protest cannot be raised
-------
Federal Register / VoL 51, No. 173 / Monday, Septemoer 8, 1966 / Notices
32039
85:07 Maine Dept of Environmental
Protection (L 1-30-85) (MetcaJfS-
Eddy) (where failure of protester to
notify other interested parties of
protest caused no prejudice, the
appeal wfll be considered).
85:09 Carthage, MO (VIL1-31-85)
(LaForge PBudd Const Co.) (grantee
is not required to prepare a memo or
rationale to accompany its written
protest determination).
85:15 Lake Accotink Park. Fairfax. VA
(EL 2-22-85) (Lyons Const) (only
those matters raised before grantee on
protest can be raised during appeal).
85:19 Kankakee. 1L (V. 3-28-85) (Mehta
&Assoc.) (issue not raised during
initial protest cannot be raised on
appeal).
85:25 Shubuta. MS (TV. 4-29-85) (Video
Pipe Services, Inc.) (letter addressed
to recipient instead of EPA is not a
proper appeal).
85:35 Willoughby. OH (V, 7-1-^5)
(Quasar Const, Inc.) (letter addressed
to City is not proper appeal to EPA).
85:47 Sioux City. IA (VII. 9-13-85)
(Industrial and Municipal
Engineering, Inc.) (protest may not be
denied on procedural grounds where
grantee failed to notify bidders that
the procurement was subject to EPA
regulation).
85:50 Lorain. OH (V. 9-17-85) (Mpsser
Const, Inc.) (where grantee decides
protest in favor of protester, other
parties to the protest may appeal to
EPA without first filing a protest)
(where bid rejected as nonresponsive
EPA will not consider arguments that
bidder could be rejected as
nonresponsible) (cf. Anne Anmdel, m,
9-27-«5).
85:54 Anne ArundeL MO (IE 9-27-85)
(Robert Filter Manufacturing Co.. Inc.)
(although interested parties must be
notified of protest, failure to give
notice will not justify rejection of
protest where no prejudice resulted]
(EPA may rely on all information
available and is not restricted to the
arguments raised by the parties).
85:81 Jordan, MI (V, 10-21-85) (Veit»
Co.) (protest appeal may be decided
by EPA although there is a pending
law suit in State court) (cf. Possum
Valley, m. 2-14-45).
85:62 Broomfield. CO (VUL11-28-85)
(Summit Const, Inc.) (where project
engineer recommended rejection of
low bid, it was reasonable for grantee
to accept a protest directly from that
decision).
85:87 Monterey. CA (K, 12-17-86)
(Dillingham Const, Inc.) (where third-
low bidder failed to participate in
protest proceedings initiated by the
second-low bidder and had notice of
the basis for its protest, it improperly
waited until EPA issued appeal
determination and then protested
award that grantee made in
accordance with the EPA
determination).
85:70 Modesto, CA (DC (12-20-85)
(Industrial Pump Supply) (it is not a
conflict of interest for the project
engineer who rejected equipment to
decide the subsequent bid protest for
the grantee.
Rational Basis Test (See also
Engineering Judgment)
85:09 Carthage, MO (VII. 1-31-85)
(LaForge & Budd Const) (EPA refers
to other appeal decisions and GAO
decisions) (EPA will not reverse
grantee decision concerning who is
low bidder under State law unless
clear showing of violation of State law
or federal regulation).
85:12 Orlando, FL (IV. 2-8-85) (Drum
Owen Valve Co.) (no EPA deference
to engineer's technical judgment
where inaccurate information used or
where City's reason for rejection was
speculative in nature).
85:49 Frederick, MD (m. 9-17-85) (RDP
Co.) (EPA defers to technical
judgment of engineer provided there is
rational basis for specification).
85:50 Lorain. OH (V, 9-17-85) (Mosser
Const, Inc.) (potential savings must
be material before rejecting bid
because it exceeds engineer's
estimate).
85:62 Broorofield. CO (VUL11-26-65)
(Summit Canst, Inc.) (grantee lacked
rational basis for finding bid
nonresponsive and bidder
nonresponsible).
Reconsideration
84:52 Possum Valley, PA (H 2-14-85)
(U-Max Engineering) (limited review
does not permit rearguing points
previously discussed and determined).
85:39 Lewes. DE (HL 8-28-85) (Mixing
Equipment Co., Inc.) (denied where no
factual mistake or error of law).
85:54 Anne Arundel. MD (IIL 7-18-85)
(Roberts Filter) (EPA did not err in
looking beyond the arguments made
by the parties).
85:60 Westborough. MA (1.12-10-85)
(Dorr-Oliver, Inc.) (denied) (where no
newly discovered evidence, issue of
law, factual mistake or error of law,
the decision will not he reconsidered).
Regulations
85:42 Glenwood and Long Beach, MN
(V. 8-9-85) (J * S Contracting)
(grantee elected to follow Part 33
regulations instead of Part 35 which
was in effect on date of grant award)
(appeal decisions interpreting certain
Part 35 requirements continue to be
followed and applied by EPA).
85:59 Georgetown. MN (V, 10-18-85)
(Robert of Roberts & Associates. Inc.)
(explanation of whether Parts 33 and
35 apply).
85:68 Monterey, CA (IX. 12-17-85)
(Fluor Constructors. Inc.) (EPA may
rely on protest appeal determinations
issued under Part 35 regulations and
principles stated in those regulations.
Review by EPA
85:07 Maine Dept. of Environmental
Protection. MA (L 1-30-85) (MetcalfS-
Eddy) (review of competitive
negotiations is limited to whether bid
evaluation was based on RFP
criteria).
85:09 Carthage. MO (VU, 1-31-85)
(LaForge SrBudd Const.) (EPA refers
to other appeal decisions and GAO
decisions) (EPA will not reverse
grantee decision concerning who is
low bidder under State law unless
clear showing of violation of State law
or federal regulations).
85:45 Newberg, OR (X. 9-11-85)
(Contractors, Inc.) (deference given to
grantee's responsibility
determination).
Sua Sponte Review
85:27 Lansing. MI (V. 5-17-85)
(Acrision, Inc.) (where protest was
untimely, EPA summarily dismissed
appeal but reversed the merits).
84:52 Possum Valley, PA (III. 2-14-85)
(U-Max Engineering). _ -
(Reconsideration) (where no blatant
violation of EPA regulations, EPA will
not exercise discretion to review).
85:47 Sioux City. IA (VII, 9-13-65)
(Industrial & Municipal Engineering,
Inc.) (protests were defective but
brought to EPA's attention serious
defects in grantee procurement. EPA
reviewed merits of protests).
85:51 Rantoul. EL (V. 9-18-85)
(American Surfpac Corp.) (EPA has
authority to independently review
grantee procurement actions).
85:53 Anne Arundel County, MD (III,
9-27-85) (Allied Contractors, Inc.)
(EPA may review late protest on its
merits).
85:19 Kankakee. IL (V, 3-28-65} (Mehta
6-Assoc.) (subcontractor may not
protest prime's method of evaluating
its equipment).
85:39 Lewes, DE (HI. 7-19-85) (Mixing
Equipment Co.) (supplier has standing
to protest specifications on
prequaliflcation but if protester can
meet specifications it cannot
challenge them as unduly restrictive).
85:48 Frederick. MD (III. 9-17-85)
(Dresser Industries) (subcontractor
-------
32040
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 173 / Monday. September 8. 1986 / Notices
substitution is not protestable)
(subcontractor lacks standing to
challenge grantee's evaluation of
responsiveness of competitor
supplier's equipment).
85:56 Westchester County. NY (EL 10-
9-85] (Crouse Combustion Systems,
Inc.) (bidder who withdrew bid before
contract award lacks standing to
protest award to another bidder).
85:57 Pueblo, CO (Vffl, 10-11-65)
(WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
(substituted subcontractor cannot
protest prime's decision to substitute
firms).
85:60 Westborough, MA (1,10-21-85)
(Dorr-Oliver, Inc.) (where supplier
was able to compete but chose not to,
it lacks standing to protest the later
approval by recipient of another
supplier's equipment).
85:68 Monterey, CA (IX, 12-17-85) (IX.
12-17-85) (Fluor Constructors Inc.) (a
nonresponsive bidder has no
adversely affected direct financial
interest and, therefore, lacks
standing).
85:70 Modesto, CA (IX. 12-20-85)
(Industrial Pump Supply) (equipment
supplier may protest prime contractor
rejection of its equipment where prime
contractor's decision was directed by
the recipient. However, technical
disputes concerning performance are
matters of contract administration
which are not reviewed by EPA).
Summary Disposition
85:08 Milwaukee, WI (V, 1-31-85)
(Kari-Kool Transports, Inc.) (reliance
on incorrect oral advice given at pre-
bid conference is not protestable).
85:33 Milwaukee. WI (V, 6-19-85)
(Staff Electric Co.) (where grantee
waives failure to notarize bid as a
minor irregularity and gives legal
opinion that State law permits the
waiver, EPA will not review the
matter where there is no overriding
federal interest).
85:35 Willoughby, OH (V, 7-1-85)
(Quasar Const, Inc.) (protest
challenged the waiver of minor bid
irregularities of a competitor such as
signature and seal) (where bidder is
not next in line for award, EPA will
not review). _
Time Limitations
84:52 Possum Valley, PA (III, 2-14-85)
(U-Max Engineering)
(Reconsideration) (timeliness of
protest is of paramount importance).
85:02 New York, NY (H, 1-17-85)
(Schiavone Const. Co.) (appeal clock
starts when protest determination
received by address listed on
protester's letterhead even if not
received by main office at that time).
85:05 Carson City. NV (K, 1-18-85)
(Nevada Const. & Mining) (protest
untimely where filed more than 7 days
after protester had notice that
contract was awarded to another
bidder).
85:25 Shubuta. MS (IV, 4-29-85) (Video
Pipe Services, Inc.) (appeal received
by EPA 7 days after protester receives
grantee determination is untimely).
85:27 Lansing. MI (V. 5-17-85)
(Acrison, Inc.) (appeal of
prequalification rejection dismissed
because not filed within 7 days of- -
notice of rejection). But See Chelan,
WA (X, 6-24-86), which permits
prequalification protests filed more
than 7 days after receipt of decision if
the protest challenges the
specifications and is filed before
prime contract bid opening.
85:30 Pittsylvania. PA (HI. 5-24-85) (J&
D Constructors, Inc.) (where
contractor was default terminated for
failing to provide performance bonds,
its protest was untimely for being not
filed within 7 days).
85:35 Willoughby, OH (V, 7-1-85)
(Quasar Const. Inc.) (appeal untimely
where filed more than 7 days after
receipt of grantee's determination).
85:41 Red Oak, IA (VII, 8-5-85) (Elliott
Equipment Co.) (protest was untimely
because it challenged specifications.
and was not filed before bid opening).
85:42 Glenwood and Long Beach, MN
(V, 8-9-85) (J & S Contracting, Inc.)
(protest was untimely because it
challenged specifications and was not
filed before bid opening).
85:50 Rantoul, EL (V, 9-18-85])
(American Surfpac Corp.) (protest
alleging improprieties in specification
is timely where filed before bid
opening) (this is generally so if
protester knew of the improprieties for
more than 7 days before filing. See
Chelan, WA (X, 6-24-36)).
85:54 Anne Arundel, MD (EL 9-27-85)
(Roberts Filter Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.) (unduly restrictive specifications
must be challenged prior to bid
opening—protester cannot wait until
equipment is rejected after bid
opening to file its protest). (See also
Southbridge, L 1-24-86)
85:55 Little Blue Valley. MO (VII, 10-1-
85] (Roots Division of Dresser
Industries) (where brand name or
equal specifications exclude supplier's
equipment, protest must be filed prior
to bid opening—supplier cannot wait
until equipment is rejected to file
protest).
85:62 Brpomfield, CO (VIE. 11-26-85]
(Summit Construction, Inc.) (where
protest was based on action of project
engineer rather than grantee, grantee
may consider it).
85:64 Augusta, GA (IV, 12-5-85) (Beiler
Equipment Co., Inc.) (where alleged
improprieties in specifications were
clearly apparent in the IFB, protest
was not filed prior to bid opening).
85.67 Monterey, CA (IX, 12-17-85)
(Dillingham Const., Inc.) (where the
third-low bidder did not participate in
proceedings initiated by the second-
low bidder, bidders' subsequent
protest of the award was untimely
where it had adequate notice of basis
for protest).
85:71 Binghamton, NY (H, 12-28-85)
(American Bio Tech) (telegraph
appeal notice was timely but
subsequent submittal of detailed
supplemental statement was
untimely).
Waiver (See Procurement Index—
"Waiver")
Procurement
A/EServices
85:07 Maine Dept. of Environmental
Protection (L 1-30-85) (Metcalffr
Eddy) (EPA will not review grantee's
judgment of what specific services are
required for remedial action).
85:10 Lake County Sanitation District
(IX 2-5-85) (Peak S-Assoc.) (bid
evaluation of technical proposal is
matter of procurement discretion and
will not generally be disturbed by
EPA).
Award Prime Contract
85:14 Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission (III, 2-22-85) (Hycon and
Professional Services Group)
(although state law gives grantee
discretion in matters of contract
award, that discretion is limited by
fundamental federal procurement
requirements).
Bid Shopping
85:31 Bradenton, FL (IV. 6-4-85)
(Lakeside Equipment Co.)
(subcontractor substitution is not
protestable).
85:50 Frederick. MD (ffl, 9-17-85)
(Dresser Industries) (EPA regulations
do not prohibit bid shopping and EPA
views equipment listing as
informational only unless IFB clearly
makes it a matter of responsiveness).
85:57 Pueblo, CO (VII. 10-11-85)
- (WesTech Engineering, Inc.) (bid
shopping not prohibited unless state,
local law or the bidding documents so
provide).
85:58 Pueblo. CO (VIII. 10-11-85)
(Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (bid shopping not
prohibited by EPA).
85:65 Jacksonville. AR (VI, 12-12-85)
(Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (EPA neither
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 173 / Monday. September 8. 1986 / Notices 32041
prohibits nor require* bid shopping—
see EPA Report to Congress:
Wastewater Treatment Contracting
and Bid Shopping, June 1978).
Bidders & Offerers
85:56 Westchester County, NY (H, 10-
9-85) (Grouse Combustion Systems,
Inc.) (grantee may obtain cost
concessions from lowest bidder after
bid opening).
Bifis
Acceptance Period
No entries.
Addendum
85:38 Clarence, NY (H, 7-18-85)
(Hydro-Group, Inc.) (failure to sign
formal acknowledgment of receipt of
IFB addendum may be waived as
minor irregularity where bidder
included a quotation for the additional
item in its bid and specifically
referred to addendum).
Alternates
85:61 fordan. MI (V, 10-21-85) (Veil &
Co.) (where bidders were required to
list unit prices for several alternates
but further required to choose one
alternate to base its lump sum bids, a
bid is nonresponsive if the bidder fails
to list a unit pnce for one of its
alternates).
85:37 Bradenton. FL (IV. 7-15-85)
(ICOS/Hycon) (where failure to
comply with bid terms reflect on
responsibility rather than
responsiveness they may be waived)
(in order to be responsive on one
alternate it was not necessary to
submit bid on other alternate).
Ambiguity
85:40 Johnson County, KS fVH, 7-25- .
85) (Martin Eby Const.) (where
contrary to terms of IFB, bid was
conditioned upon grantee approving
proposed "or equal" equipment before
award, this caused ambiguity
concerning bidder's obligation if
equipment substitution was later
required and made bid
nonresponsive).
Base Bids
No entries.
Cancellation of Solicitation
85:47 Sioux City, IA CVH. 9-13-85)
(Industrial & Municipal Engineering,
Inc.) (EPA reversed grantee and
directed solicitation be cancelled and
readvertised).
Evaluation
85:07 Maine Dept. of Environmental
Protection (1.1-30-85) (MetcalfS-
Eddy) (where RFP stated cost was of
secondary importance, grantee may
award contract to more expensive
proposal).
85:10 Lake County Sanitation District
(IX. 2-5-85)/PeaA ZAssoc.) (A/E
procurement—where RFP did not
provide that proposer's failure to
respond adequately to one of the
evaluation factors would result in his
rejection, grantee's affirmative
evaluation was reasonable).
85:12 . .Orlando, FL [IV, 2-8-85) (Drum
Owen Valve Co.) (performance based
reason for rejection must be based on
more than speculation of problems).
85:16 Mission. TX (IV. 3-1-35)
(Evirondyne Inc.) (evaluation cannot
be based on undisclosed, subjective
criteria) (data submission requirement
must he based on underlying need for
considering data).
85:24 Chelan. WA (X. 4-26-85)
(Walker Process Corp.)(A/E
improperly rejected equipment for
failing to meet design features which
were not specified).
85:29 San Antonio. TX {VI 5-23-85)
(Pollution Control, Inc.) (may not
reject equipment on basis of criterion
not disclosed in IFB) (IFB clause
requiring "experience" in making
"similar" equipment cannot be used to
require experience in making exactly
the same equipment).
85:40 Johnson County, KS (VII, 7-25-
85) (Martin Eby Const) (by reviewing
bidder's alternate equipment proposal
before awarding contract, grantee
failed to evaluate the bids in
accordance with IFB criteria which
stated "or equal" equipment would
only be evaluated after award).
85:48 Frederick. MD (ID. 9-17-85)
(Dresser Industries) (subcontractor
lacks standing to challenge grantee's
evaluation of its competitor's
equipment).
Extension
85:62 Broomfield. CO (Vffl. 11-28-85)
(Summit Constructors, Inc.) (active
participation in protest proceeding
evidences intent to extend bid).
Late
85:36 Chemung County, NY (II. 7-3-65)
(Tougher Ind., Inc.) (bid
nonresponsive where IFB stated late
bids would not be accepted and bid
was-2 minutes late) (grantee has
discretion in applying GAO strict
treatment of late bids).
Mistake
85:08 Carthage. MO (VI. 1-31-65)
(LaForge & Budd Const.) (extrinsic
evidence may be used to show
intended bid where no bid
displacement) (words over numbers
reconciliation clause will not be
strictly enforced where intended bid
is clearly apparent).
85:17 Mackinac Is.. MI (V, 3-13-85)
(Barton-Malow Co. Sr Omega Const.)
(mistake in bid on entire project did
not affect bid on individual pump
station).
85:66 Newport, RI (L 12-17-85)
(Peabody N.E., Inc.) (bid displacement
allowed where mistake and intended
bid are apparent on the face of the
bid—extended amount price was put
in unit price column).
Preparation Costs
No entries.
Public Notice
85:47 Sioux City, IA (VH. 9-13-85)
(Industrial 6" Municipal Engineering,
Inc.) (where grantee failed to
advertise in newspapers and journals
of general circulation and only
allowed 17 days from notice to bid
opening, EPA required resolicitation).
Qualified
85:40 Johnson County. KS (VII. 7-25-
85) (Martin Eby Const.) (bid that was
conditioned on grantee approving "or
equal" equipment before award is
nonresponsive where IFB provided for
post award equipment evaluation
only.
Rejection of all Bids
85:47 Neenah-Menasha, IL (V, 3-28-85)
(Flour Bros. Const. Co.) (where low
bid had to be rejected for being late
and other bids were deemed too
expensive, grantee had rational
business reasons for rejecting all
bids).
85:02 Lowell, MA (1.1-11-85) (Gioiosa
6- Sons, Inc.) (not justified by
unbalanced bidding) (recipient does
not have unfettered discretion).
85:22 Detroit, MI (V, 4-18-85) (ETS
Towers, Inc.) (IFB failed to specify
experience evaluation criteria
necessary for determining which bids
satisfied requirements—harm to
bidder required readvertising the
project).
Signature
85:33 Milwaukee. WI (V, 6-19-85)
(Staff Electric Co.) (failure to notarize
bid as required by state law may be
waived as minor irregularity).
85:35 Willoughby. OH (V, 7-1-65)
(Quasar Const., Inc.) (failure to
notarize bid waived as minor
irregularity).
-------
32042
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 19G6 / Notices
wB&L^r*^^*9B»jr^v^MM^BHMWi^Mi^^^HMe>nM^Ha^^K^i^^H^B^EflKMHM«e>:^HH^B^KBM»^H^Ba.3r<» ..*.-nua-:9>*"mMnffRKaM^BVK«ZlMBiH^anMMnvW*:
Time to Prepare
85:47 Sioux City, IA (VII, 9-13-85)
(Industrial & Municipal Engineering,
Inc.) (advertising 17 days in advance
of bid opening was inadequate)
(adequate notice must be placed in
newspapers and journals of general
circulation).
Unbalanced
85:02 Lowell, MA (1,1-11-85) (Gioroso
& Sons, Inc.) (Penny bidding is not
contrary to federal principles unless it
causes bid to be materially
unbalanced making it impossible to
determine the low bid).
85:35 Willoughby. OH (V, 7-1-85)
(Quasar Const., Inc.) (whether
unbalanced bid can be accepted
depends on whether it is reasonably
certain to result in lowest price).
Unit Pricing
No entries.
Bonds
85.30 Pittsylvania. PA (III, 5-24-85) (J &
D Constructors, Inc.) (failure to
provide performance bonds within 10
days of contract award was rational
basis for grantee to reject bidder as
nonresponsible).
85:51 Rantoul. IL (V, 9-18-85)
(American Surfpac Corp.)
(performance bond which ensured
performance for 3 years was
reasonable where suppliers had no
similar equipment in service)
(inability of one supplier to obtain
bond does not prove undue burden
where other suppliers did obtain
bond) (EPA no longer requires grantee
to accept bond in lieu of experience).
Buy American Act
85:28 Osage Beach, MO (VII. 5-22-85)
(Marley Pump Co.) (because grantee
demonstrated that foreign components
comprised under 50% total value of
the product, the preference did not
apply).
85:55 Little Blue Valley, MO {VH, 10-1-
85) (Roots, Dresser) (until prime
selects supplier, compliance with the
Act cannot be determined) (See also,
Chelan, Washington, X, 6-24-86).
Conflict of Interest
85:19 Kankakee, IL (V, 3-28-85) (Mehta
& Assoc.) (no evidence of conflict
presented, appeal dismissed as
without merit).
85:70 Modesto, CA (IX, (12-20-85)
(Industrial Pump Supply) (it is not a
conflict of interest for the project
engineer who rejected equipment to
decide the subsequent bid protest for
the grantee).
Engineering Judgment
85:13 Dpthan. AL (IV, 2-21-85)
(American Bioreactor Co. & Fluid
Svstems, Inc.) (rational basis for
experience requirements).
85:42 Glenwood and Long Beach, MN
(V. 8-9-85) (J&S. Contracting, Inc.)
(rational performance based reasons
for requiring single material is given
deference by EPA.) (when EPA defers
to engineer it does not mean it
believes the specifications reflect the
best engineering judgment and no
opinion is offered regarding relative
merits of the material or equipment or
their suitability for particular
engineering applications).
85:49 Frederick, MD (III, 9-17-85) (RDP
Co.) (protest appeal sustained where
design features were not supported by
rational performance based needs).
85:55 Little Blue Valley, MO (VII. 10-1-
85) (Roots, Dresser) (performance
reasons for design features).
Experience Requirements
85:13 Dothan. AL (IV, 2-21-85)
(American Bioreactor Co. and Fluid
Systems, Inc.) (City was justified in
rejecting equipment which
manufacturer had never before
fabricated or designed to the size
needed).
85:18 Mission, TX (VI, 3-1-85)
(Envirodyne, Inc.) (experience clause
was ambiguous where it did not
define applicable period of experience
to be objectively applied).
85:22 Detroit. MI (V, 4-18-85) (ETS
Towers, Inc.) (experience
requirements must be objectively
stated evaluation criteria).
85:29 San Antonio, TX (VI, 5-23-85)
(Pollution Control, Inc.) (where IFB
required bidders to have experience
manufacturing "similar" equipment, a
bidder cannot be rejected for not
having manufactured "exactly" the
same equipment).
85:37 Bradenton, FL (IV, 7-15-85)
(ICOS/Hycon) (where IFB states
experience requirement was for
purpose of determining bidders
ability, it is a matter of responsibility
not responsiveness and can be cured
after bid opening).
85:45 Newberg, OR (X. 9-11-85)
(Contractors, Inc.) (experience of key
personnel was a matter of
responsibility not responsiveness and
the affirmative finding of
responsibility is a discretionary
decision which will not be reviewed
in the absence of fraud or bad faith).
85:70 Modesto, CA (IX, 12-20-85)
(Industrial Pump Supply) (where
bidder was rejected for lack of
experience, EPA found the IFB
adequately defined experience and
recipient had rational basis for
rejecting bidder) (grantee may require
proven product rather than newly
designed one).
Innovative Technology
84:43 Troup, TX (VI, 9-4-85)
(McKinney 6- Moore, Inc.) (more
restrictive specifications are
permissable).
In vitation for Bids (IFB)
General
85:08 Milwaukee WI (V, 1-31-85)
(Kari-Kool Transports, Inc.) (bidder
unjustifiably relied on oral
representations made at pre-bid
conference).
Ambiguity
85:22 Detroit, MI (V, 4-18-85) (ETS
Towers, Inc.) (requirement that
experience be documented failed to
state how experience would be
objectively evaluated).
85:45 Monterey, CA (IX 9-12-85)
(Mortenson/Natkin) (no ambiguity
where IFB clearly states that failure to
list subcontractor renders bid
nonresponsive and adds no other
language describing rejection or
permitting acceptance of
nonconforming bid) (explanation of
"two prong" test applied in other EPA
decisions).
85:67 Monterey. CA (IX, 12-17-85)
(Dillingham Const., Inc.) (City
correctly found bid responsive where
bidding documents did not clearly and
unequivocally put bidders on notice
that failure to comply with
requirements that typically concern
responsibility would render a bid
nonresponsive) (EPA will examine not
only the language in relevant portions
of IFB but consider the bid documents
in their entirety to determine overall
clarity).
Defective
No Entries.
License Requirement
85:05 Carson Citv, NV (IX, 1-18-85)
(Nevada Const. & Mining) (EPA would
not consider whether state licensing
law requiring license prior to bidding
, unreasonably restricted competition,
since bidder's delay in applying for
the license contributed to his inability
to obtain it in time).
listing Subcontractors
85:06 Addison, IL (V, l-25-85)YSo/i-«
Const. Co.) (where IFB clearly
required bidders to list manufacturers,
-------
bid was properly rejected for failing to
comply).
85:06 Addison. IL (V. 3-19-85) (Sollitt
Const. Co.) (Reconsideration) (bid was
nonresponsive because it named
several subcontractors but did not
identify which was to be used).
85:17 Mackinac Is.. Ml (V. 3-13-85)
(Barton-Malow Co. 8- Omega Const.)
(where IFB is ambiguous,
subcontractor listing is matter of
responsibility rather than
responsiveness).
85:20 Leesburg. VA (ffl, 4-2-65) (fames
Federline and MCI Const. Co.).
(failure to list subcontractors did not
render bid nonresponsive).
85:32 Warren. OH (V, 6-8-85) (RAM
Engineering. Inc.) (MBE subcontractor
substitution is not protestable because
it is a matter of contract
administration, not procurement).
85:37 Bradenton, FL (IV, 7-15-85)
(ICOS/Hycon) (bid cannot be rejected
for failure to list subcontractors where
IFB did not expressly require it as a
matter of responsiveness).
85:45 Newberg, OR (X. 9-11-85)
(Contractors, Inc.) (bid cannot be
rejected for failure to list
subcontractors where IFB did not
expressly require it as a matter of
responsiveness).
85:48 Monterey, CA (IX, 9-12-85)
(Mortenson/Natkin) (bid failing to list
equipment manufacturer must be
rejected where IFB clearly stated
listing was a matter of
responsiveness—under Part 33
regulation IFB need not state that bid
will be rejected, provided it clearly
states bid will be nonresponsive and
contains no conflicting language
suggesting grantee may he permitted
to accept nonresponsive bid).
85:65 Jacksonville, AR (VI. 12-12-85)
(Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (where IFB did
not state that failure to list
subcontractors would render bid
nonresponsive, grantee may award
contract to bidder that did not
accurately list its subcontractors)
(listing a supplier in its bid did not
obligate prime to award subcontract
to that supplier).
85:87 Monterey, CA (IX. 12-17-85)
(Dillingham Const. Inc.) (failure of
listed equipment to meet the
specifications does not render prime's
bid nonresponsive where IFB required
that equipment be listed but did not
require that bids be rejected for listing
unqualified equipment.)
85:88 Monterey, CA (IX, 12-17-85)
(Fluor Constructors. Inc.) (same
analysis as Monterey, Dillingham, IX.
12-17-85. this subject index).
Minority Business and Women 'a
Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE1
85:14 Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission (ffl, 2-22-85) (Hycon &
Professional Services Group)
(documentation was matter of
responsibility, not responsiveness).
85:15 Lake Accotink Park. Fairfax VA
(III, 2-22-85) (Lyons Const)
(documentation a matter of
responsibility).
85:18 Lake Geneva. WI (V, 3-18-85)
(Camosy Const) {MBE documenta-
tion is matter of responsibility where
IFB did not clearly state otherwise).
85:19 Kankakee. IL (V, 3-28-85) (Mehta
8-Assoc.J (prime may rely on MBE's
self certification) (prime's evaluation
of subcontractor is not protestable).
85:23 Unalaska, AL (X, 4-28-85)
(Rockford Corp.) (failure to include
documentation did not render bid
nonresponsive where IFB did not
clearly recuire it).
85:28 Scales Mound. IL (V, 5-14-85)
(Smith & Andrews Const Co.) (EPA
policy is to treat MBE documentation
as matter of responsibility but grantee
made it matter of responsiveness and
rejected nonconforming bid
accordingly).
85:32 Warren, OH (V, 6-6-85) (RAM
Engineering. Inc.) (subcontractor
substitution is not protestable)
(unsubstantiated allegation that prime
negotiated in bad faith does not meet
burden of proof needed for protest)
(WBE firm has no standing to
challenge the goal established by
grantee).
85:34 Cannon Falls, MN (V, 8-28-85)
(Lysne Const, Inc.) (bid responsive
where it documented positive efforts
and reasons for not meeting MBE
goal).
85:50 Lorain. OH (V, 9-17-85) (Mosser
Const, Inc.) (grantee cannot reject bid
as nonresponsive when bidding
documents contain contradictory
language and. when read as a whole
make documentation a matter of
responsibility).
85:51 Rantoul IL (V. 9-18-85)
(American Surfpac Corp.) (bonding
' requirement did not violate SBE/MBE
• policy where several firms obtained
the required bonds).
85:53 Anne Arundel County, MD (III,
9-27-85) (Allied Contractors, Inc.)
(bidder can meet requirements by
either meeting goal or showing good
faith efforts) (documentation a matter
of responsibility) (EPA affirmed
grantee determination of good faith).
85:57 Pueblo. CO (VIII. 10-11-85) -
(WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
(substitution of firms for business
reasons does not violate EPA policy)
(prime's business decision to place
one large order instead of dividing
into smaller orders will not be
reviewed by EPA).
85:58 Pueblo. CO (VIII. 10-11-85)
(Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (prime's
substitution of firms does not violate
EPA regulation and is not protestable)
(substitution does not violate
affirmative steps) (protester lacks
standing to challenge the way grantee
calculated MBE participation).
85:85 Jacksonville. AR (VI. 12-12-85)
(Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (MBE policy does
not prohibit bid shopping) (prime did
not bid shop but rather substituted the
MBE based on a reconsideration of
previous offers which were less
expensive—prime did not negotiate
prices with subcontract offerers after
bid opening and was not required to
do so) (no violation of the policy that
total projects be divided into snail
tasks where it is not economically
feasible to do so).
85:66 Newport. RI (1.12-17-85)
(Peabody N.E., Inc.) (bid documents
when read as a whole did not make
submission of certificates a matter of
responsiveness).
Negotiated Procurement
85:07 Maine Dept. of Environmental
Protection. MA (1,1-30-85) (Metcalf 6-
Eddy) (review of competitive
negotiations is limited to whether bid
evaluation was based on RFP
criteria).
85:10 Lake County Sanitation District
(IX. 2-5-B5) (Peak & Assoc.) (A/E
procurement—where RFP did not
provide that proposer's failure to
respond adequately to one of the
evaluation factors would result in his
rejection, grantee's affirmative
evaluation was reasonable.
Preaualification
85:01 Ft. Lauderdale. FL (V, 1-8-85)
(Compost Systems Co.) (City changed
deadline for prime contract bid
submittal but enforced the original
deadline for submitting
prequalification packages thereby
incorrectly rejecting package
submitted after that deadline but more
than 30 days before the revised bid
opening date).
85:13 Dothan. AL (IV. 2-21-85)
(American Bioreactor and Fluid
Systems, Inc.) (rejection of proposed
composting system which
manufacturer had never before
designed and fabricated to the
required dimensions was affirmed).
85:18 Mission. TX (IV. 3-1-85)
(Envirodyne Inc.) (must be based on
specifications, not on undisclosed
-------
32044
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 173 / Monday. September 8, 1986 / Notices
subjective criteria] (data submission
requirement must be rationally based
on underlying need for considering
data).
85:24 Chelan, WA (X. 4-26-65)
(Walker Process Corp.) (where only
manufacturer could prequalify. it was
unjustified sole source procurement).
85:27 Lansing. Ml (V, 5-17-65}
(Acrison, Inc.) (equipment rejected for
prequalification because insufficient
data submitted—protester did not
show grantee lacked rational basis for
equipment design features) (time
limitations for filing protest). (But see
Chelan, WA (X. &-2S-86)).
85:39 Lewes, DE (III, 7-19-85) (Mixing
Equipment Co.) (requiring submission
of working drawings that describe
project modifications that will be
required by use of equipment does not
unduly restrict competition) (failure to
subrriit information gives rational
basis fur rejecting equipment) (IFB
authorizing only general contractors
to submit equipment for
prequalification unduly restricts
competition).
85:44 Chariton. IA (VII, 9-9-85)
(Electrical Control Systems, Ltd.)
(proposal may be rejected as
nonresponsive for not providing
required information needed for
determining responsiveness to
specifications).
85:48 Frederick. MD (III, 9-17-85)
(Dresser Industries) (successful
bidder permitted to substitute a
nonprequalified supplier for a
prequalified supplier named in its
bid).
85:49 Frederick, MD (III, 9-17-65) (RDP
Co.).
Responsibility
85:14 Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission (III, 2-22-85) (Hycon and
Professional Services Group) (MBE
documentation is matter of
responsibility unless bid documents
unambiguously state it to be matter of
responsiveness).
85:15 Lake Accotink Park, Fairfax VA
(HI, 2-22-85) (Lyons Const.)
(documentation a matter of
responsibility).
85:17 Machinac Is., MI (V, 3-13-85)
(Barton-Malow Co. & Omega Const.)
(where IFB ambiguous, subcontractor
listing is matter of responsibility
rather than responsiveness).
85:18 Lake Geneva. WI (V, 3-18-85)
(Camosy Const.) (MBE documentation
is matter of responsibility where IFB
did not clearly state otherwise).
85:20 Leesburg, VA (in. 4-2-85) (fames
Federline, Inc. & MCI Const, Co.)
(grantee determination of
nonresponsibility based on prior poor
contract performance was rationally
based) (failure to list registered
contract number in bid is matter of
responsibility not responsiveness)
(subcontractor listing) (inclusion of
"experience, equipment and financial
statement" is matter of responsibility,
not responsiveness).
85:22 Detroit, MI (V, 4-18-85) (ETS
Towers, Inc.) (documentation of
experience is a matter of
responsibility rather than
responsiveness where bid documents
did not clearly make it
responsiveness).
85:28 Scales, Mound, L; (V. 5-14-85)
(Smith & Andrews Const. Co.) (EPA
policy to treat MBE documentation as
matter of responsibility).
85:30 Pittsylvania, PA (III 5-24-85) ff»
D Constructors, Inc.) (responsibility
determination is discretionary grantee
decision which will not be reversed
unless it lacks rational basis or is
made in bad faith] (grantee found
bidder nonresponsible because it
failed to obtain performance bonds
within required time after contract
award).
85:34 Cannon Falls. MN (V. 6-28-65)
(Lysne Const. Co.) (MBE compliance
demonstrated after bid opening).
85:37 Bradenton. FL (IV, 7-15-85)
(ICOS/Hycon) (experience
requirements could be cured after bid
opening since IFB made it a matter of
responsibility).
85:45 Newberg, OR (X, 9-11-65)
(Contractors, Inc.) (affirmative finding
of responsibility will not be reviewed
in the absence of fraud or bad faith)
(manufacturers listing and experience
of key personnel were matters of
responsibility).
85:52 Seneca. IL (V. 9-18-85) (Mehta &
Associates, Ltd. and Shafer
Engineering) (where grantee found
bidders nonresponsible due to lack of
experience and adequate manpower,
EPA will not reverse determination
absent showing of clear error or lack
of rational basis).
85:53 Anne Arundel County. MD (TO,
9-27-85) (Allied Contractors, Inc.)
(EPA affirmed grantee finding that
bidder made good faith MBE efforts).
85:62 Broomfield. CO (VIII, 11-26-65)
(Summit Const.,. Inc.) (information
developed post bid opening involves
responsibility, not responsiveness)
(bid may be rejected where owner
determines bidder does not intend to
comply with specifications) (grantee
rejection of bidder lacked a rational
basis and was reversed by EPA).
85:66 Newport, RI (1.12-17-85)
(Peabody N.E., Inc.) (bid documents
when read as a whole did not make
submission of certificates a matter of
responsiveness).
85:69 Anne Arundel. MD (IH. 12-20-85}
(Johnson Const. Co.) (documentation
was a matter of responsibility rather
than responsiveness) (where grantee
had rational basis for rejecting bid for
failing to meet MBE requirements,
EPA upheld the decision).
Responsiveness
85:06 Addison. IL (V, 1-25-85) (Sollitt
Const Co.) (bid was nonresponsive
for failing to list equipment
manufacturers when IFB clearly
required it).
85:06 Addison. IL (V, 3-19-65) (Sollitt
Const Co.) (Reconsideration) (failure
to identify intended subcontractor
rendered bid nonresponsive).
85:23 Unalaska, AK (X. 4-26-85)
(Rockford Corp.) (bid that failed to
include MBE/EEO documentation was
responsive since IFB did not clearly
require documentation with the bids).
85:26 Scales Mound, IL (V, 5-14-85)
(Smith &• Andrews Co.) (bid properly
rejected for failing to include MBE
documentation).
85:37 Bradenton, FL (IV. 7-15-85)
(ICOS/Hycon) (where failure to
comply with bid terms reflect on
responsibility rather than
responsiveness they may be waived)
(in order to be responsive on one
alternate it was not necessary to
submit bid on other alternate).
85:40 Johnson County. KS (VII, 7-25-
85) (Martin Eby Const.) (where bid
conditioned upon prior approval of
"or equal" equipment and IFB
specified it would be evaluated post
award only, bid was nonresponsive).
85:43 Troup, TX (VI, 9-4-85)
(McKinney & Moore, Inc.) (bid
offering equipment that failed to
conform to the specifications was
nonresponsive).
85:44 Chariton, LA (VU, 9-9-85)
(Electrical Control Systems, Ltd.)
(under prequalification procedure,
equipment was rejected for failure of
bidder to submit required information
and data with its proposal).
85:45 Newberg. OR (X, 9-11-85)
(Contractors, Inc.) (defined as a bid in
exact accord with the material terms
of the IFB) (manufacturer's listing was
not a matter of responsiveness).
85:46 Monterey, CA (IX, 9-12-65)
(Mortenson/Xatkin) (where IFB
clearly states that failure to list
subcontractors will render bid
- nonresponsive and WE does not add
language describing bid rejection, a
bid which fails to comply is
nonresponsive and must be rejected).
85:54 Anne Arundel, MD (III, 9-27-85)
(Roberts Filter Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.) (bid offering clay instead of
-------
Federal Register / VoL 51. No. 173 / Monday, Septemoer 8, 1986 / Notices
32045
specified plastic underdrains was
nonresponaive).
85:55 Little Blue Valley. MO (VH. 10-1-
85) (Roots Division of Dresser
Industries) ("or equal" equipment
must be rejected where it does not
meet specified design features).
85:61 Jordan. MI (V. 10-21-85) (Veil *
Co.) (bid was nonresponsive because
it failed to bid on one of the required
alternative unit items).
85:62 Broomfield, CO (Vm. 11-26-65)
(Summit Const, Inc.) (bid
responsiveness must be determined at
time of bid opening based on -
information submitted in bid)
(information developed subsequent to
bid opening cannot be used to
determine responsiveness) (by
submitting responsive bid. bidder
agrees to supply equipment meeting
specifications and may be required to
provide different equipment if that
listed in its bid is determined not to
meet the specifications) (absent
prequalification requirement grantee
need not evaluate equipment listed by
low bidder prior to contract award)
(rejection of prime bidder because one
item of equipment will not qualify as
"or equal" was not proper).
85:64 August. GA (IV, 12-5-85) (Better
Equipment Co.. Inc.) (equipment
failing to meet specifications is
properly rejected and bidder cannot
rely on grantee's oral statement that
led him to believe the nonresponsive
equipment would be accepted).
85:68 Monterey, CA (DC. 12-17-85)
fFluor Constructors, Inc.) (failure of
equipment listed in bid to meet the
specifications does not render prime
bid nonresponsive where by its bid.
bidder has committed to meeting the
specifications and substituting other
equipment if necessary).
85:69 Anne Arundel. MD (ID. 12-20-86)
(Johnson Const. Co.) (MBE
documentation is not a matter of
responsiveness unless the IFB clearly
so states) (documentation was a
matter of responsibility rather than
responsiveness) (where grantee had
rational basis for rejecting bidder for
failing to meet MBE requirements,
EPA upheld the decision).
Small Business fSBE)
85:51 Rantoul. IL (V. 9-18-85)
(American Surfpac Corp.) (bonding
requirement did not violate SBE/MBE
policy where several firms obtained
the required bonds) (grantee
adequately divided its procurement
requirements to comply with EPA
policy).
Specifications
Ambiguous (See Invitation for Bid (IFB))
Brand Name or Equal.
65:39 Lewes, DE (EL 7-19-85) (Mixing
Equiment Co.) (improper to use brand
name or equal specifications unless it
is impractical or uneconomical to use
other types of specifications)
(specifications defective for not
identifying salient requirements).
85:39 Lewes. DE (ID, 8-28-85) (Mixing
Equipment Co.) (Reconsideration)
(listing all the specifications of named
brand is not a proper listing of salient
features).
85:40 Johnson County. KS (VIL 7-25-
85) (Martin Eby Const.) (where IFB
stated that "or equals" would only be
evaluated after contract award
grantee improperly accepted a bid
that was conditioned on preaward
approval of equipment).
85:49 Frederick. MD (ID. 9-17-85) (HDP
Co.) (where IFB was ambiguous
concerning what salient features were
required, a supplier would be unable
to determine or demonstrate that its
product is "equal").
85:55 Little Blue Valley, MO (VIII. 10-
18-85) (Roots, Dresser) (permitting
award to supplier whose equipment
does not meet specifications would
prejudice responsive bidders).
85:67 Monterey. CA (IX 12-17-85)
(Dillingham Const., Inc.) (failure of
equipment listed in bid to satisfy
specifications does not render prime
bid nonresponsive where, by its bid,
bidder had committed to meeting the
specifications and substituting other
equipment if necessary).
Competition
85:42 Clenwood and Long Beach. MN
(V. 8-9-85) ff 8>S Contracting)
(specification limiting competition is
not improper unless supplier would be
unable to determine or demonstrate
that its product is "equal").
85:44 Chariton. IA (VII. 9-9-85)
f Electrical Control Systems, Ltd.)
(requiring equipment supplier to be a
manufacturer unduly restricts
competition).
85:51 Rantoul. IL (V, 9-16-85)
(American Surfpac Corp.) (bonding
requirement did not violate SBE/MBE
policy where several firms obtained
the required bonds) (grantee
adequately divided its procurement
requirements to comply with EPA
policy).
85:58 Pueblo, CO (VIII, 10-11-85)
(Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (prequalified -
supplier cannot protest that
independent decision of prime to
substitute another firm harmed its
ability to compete).
Design
85:43 Troup. TX (VL 9-*-85)
(McKinney & Moore, Inc.) (basic
design decision is not protestable).
Local Preference
No Entries.
Minimum Needs (See Performance
Based and Unduly Restrictive)
No Entries.
Nonrestrictive (See Unduly Restrictive)
No Entries.
Oral Statements
85:08 Milwaukee, WI (V. 1-31-85)
(Kari-Kool Transports. Inc.) (reliance
on incorrect oral advice given at pre-
bid conference is not protestable).
85:18 Lake Geneva, WI (V, 3-18-85)
(Camosy Const.) (Grantee's oral
statements at pre-bid conference do
not have force of law and cannot be
basis for protesting City's subsequent
responsibility determination).
85:64 Augusta. GA (IV. 12-5-86) (Beiler
Equipment Co., Inc.) (a bidder who
relies on oral statements regarding
bidding documents does so at its own
risk).
Performance Based
85:24 Chelan. WA (X. 4-26-85)
(Walker Process Corp.) (EPA funds
minimum performance needs, not
ideal or best design—the
specifications improperly focused on
design features instead).
85:44 Chariton. IA (VH. 9-9-85)
(Electrical Control Systems. Ltd.)
(EPA rejects arguments that extra
safety and economic stability factors
that a manufacturer can provide are
justified by the minimum performance
needs of the project).
85:49 Frederick. MD (III. 9-17-85) (RDP
Company) (for engineer to specify
particular equipment he must show
what is unique about a project that
justifies it) (must compare operational
efficiency of various equipment
performing same task but having
different configurations) (no rational
performance based reasons given for
design features).
Salient Requirements (See Brand Name
or Equal]
No Entries.
Sole Source
85:24 Chelan. WA (X. 4-26-85)
(Walker Process Corp.) (it was
improper to formally advertise for
procurement where only one offerer
was able to effectively compete) (City
-------
32G46
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 1986 / Notices
failed to justify need for sole source
and failed to perform cost analysis).
85:42 Glenwood and Longbeach. MN
(V, 8-9-85) ff & S Contracting, Inc.}
(specification allowing a single
material which can be obtained from
several sources is not "sole source"
specification).
85:43 Troup, TX (VL, 9-4-85)
(McKinney & Moore, Inc.) (equipment
available from a sole source must be
procured through negotiation not
formal advertising) (grantee should
probably find out whether there are
two equipment sources before
deciding to procure as subcontract
items under formally advertised prime
bids) (if only one supplier can be used
by all primes there is potential for
unreasonable bid prices by the
supplier).
Unduly Restrictive
85:24 Chelan, WA (X, 4-28-85)
(Walker Process Corp.) (grantee's
description of requirements focused
on design features rather than
performance characteristics)
(specification would require
manufacturers to duplicate
competitor's design).
85:42 Glenwood and Long Beach, MN
(V, 8-9-85) (JSrS Contracting)
(specification limiting competition is
not improper unless its restrictive •
features are not necessary to the
minimum project needs) (grantee
explained rational performance basis
for requiring single material).
85:44 Chariton. IA (VII, 9-9-85)
(Electrical Control Systems, Ltd.)
(requiring supplier to be a
manufacturer is unduly restrictive-1-
EPA rejects arguments that extra
safety and economic stability factors
that a manufacturer can provide are
justified by the minimum performance
needs of the project).,
85:49 Frederick. MD (III, 9-17-85) (RDP
Company) (where protester shows its
equipment was eliminated, engineer
must justify why particular project
needs particular equipment—cannot
require more than is necessary for the
minimum performance needs)
(specification that requires
manufacturer to duplicate .
competitor's design places a premium
on design rather than performance)
(even where manufacturer can
duplicate competitor's design.
competition is discouraged).
State and Local Law
85:14 Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission (III, 2-22-85) (Hycon and
Professional Services Group)
(although state law gives grantee
discretion in matters of contract
award, that discretion is limited by
federal procurement requirements).
85:20 Leesburg, VA (in. 4-2-85) (James
Federline, Inc. and MCI Const, Inc.)
(in determining questions of State law,
EPA relies on State authorities and
will accept a grantee's interpretation
of State law unless it lacks a rational
basis).
85:33 Milwaukee, WI (V, 6-19-85)
(Staff Electric Co.) (where grantee
waives failure to notarize bid as a
minor irregularity and gives legal
opinion that State law permits the
waiver, EPA will not review the
matter where there is no overriding
federal interest).
Subcontract Award
85:44 Chariton, IA (VH. 9-9-85)
(Electrical Control Systems, Ltd.}
(requiring equipment supplier to be a
manufacturer unduly restricts
competition).
85:48 Frederick, MD (III, 9-17-85)
(Dresser Industries) (successful
bidder was permitted to substitute a
nonprequalified supplier for a
prequalified supplier named in its
bid).
85:57 Pueblo, CO (Vin, 10-11-85)
(WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
(subcontract substitution is matter of
contract administration, not
protestable).
85:58 Pueblo, CO (VHI, 10-11-85)
(Tenco Hydro, Inc.) (prime
contractor's decision concerning
subcontract award, substitution of
firms, is not protestable] (EPA policy
not to interfere in business judgments
of primes) (no EPA restriction of prime
requiring subcontractors to meet
additional experience, bonding,
warranty requirements).
Waiver
85:16 Mission, TX (IV, 3-1-85)
(Envirodyne, Inc.) (grantee used
unduly restrictive specifications and
attempted to waive them to accept a
nonresponsive offerer).
85:21 Wheatfield, NY (LI, 4-12-85)
(Milherst Const, Inc.) (grantee could
waive IFB requirement that bids on
two sections of a project must contain
identical unit prices since it had a
negligible effect and no unfair
advantage occurred).
85:33 Milwaukee. WI (V, 6-19-85)
(Staff Electric Co.) (failure to notarize
bid as allegedly required by State law
may be waived as minor irregularity).
85:37 Bradenton, FL (IV, 7-15-85)
(ICOS/Hycon) (failure to comply with
terms of bid such as certificates and
forms may be waived and cured after
bid opening where items reflect on
responsibility rather than
responsiveness).
85:38 Clarence, NY (II, 7-18-85)
(Hydro-Group, Inc.) (failure to sign
formal acknowledgment of receipt of
IFB addendum waived as minor
informality where bidder included a '
quotation for the additional
addendum item in its bid and referred
to the addendum).
[FR Doc. 86-20197 Filed 9-5-86; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE MM SO II
-------
Subject Index
Appeal Issues
PROCEDURAL APPEAL MATTERS
-------
-------
BURDEN OF PROOF
Burden of proof
84:07 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago. IL (V, 2-6-84) (A.J.
Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind. Inc., and
Klein Cons. Co.) (grantee burden
where proposes to award to other
than low bidder).
84:10 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago, IL (V, 3-1-64)
(Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
(protester's burden where award to
apparent low bidder).
84:27 Metropolitan Sewer Diit,
Cincinnati. OH (V. 7-16-84)
(Parkson Corp.} (protester moat
show specification unduly restricted
it from competition).
8435 Portage Sanitary Bd.. Portage, IN
(V, 8-31-84) (Cariup Const. Co..
Inc.) (protester's burden to prove his
competitor's equipment was not
equal to brand name salient
requirements).
84:37 Lewistown. MT (VIII. 9-27-84)
(Process Equipment Co.) (protester's
burden where challenges
application of specification).
84:47 Reelfoot Lake. TN (IV, 11-6-84)
(Carlon, Inc.) (shifting burden where
unduly restrictive specifications
alleged).
Burden of Proof
83:01 Spearfish. SD tVIII, 1-11-63)
(RickelManufacturing Co.) (grantee
must prove exclusionary specification
based on minimum performance
needs).
83:03 Columbus. OH [Reconsideration)
(V, 6-6-83) [Cobey Metro—Waste
Compositing System, Inc.) (grantee
must prove rational basis for
experience and bonding requirements
if protestor shows adverse effect).
83:16 Halstead, Hutchinson, KS (VII. 3-
9-83) (Charles E. Stevens) (protestor's
burden to prove intent to bid).
83:27 "Port Arthur. TX (V, 5-12-83)
(Robert Bossow, Inc.) (bidder failed to
prove reliance on ambiguity),
83:39 Philadelphia, PA (HI. 8-22-83)
(Fisher & Porter Co.) (shifting burden).
83:43 Toledo. OH (V, 6-29-33)
(Industrial Pump 6- Equipment Corp.\
(protestor must show specification not
minimum perfornamce).
83:63 Monterey CA (IX, 11-4-63)
(Power Systems) (successful supplier
cannot prove specifications excluded
it).
33:68 Tri-City. OR (X. 13-9-83)
(Dresser Industries. Inc.) (shifting
burden where restrictive specification
alleged did not exclude equipment).
33:69 Conroe, TX (VI 12-13-»3) (JWC.
Inc.) (protestor must show prejudice
to competition).
Burden of Proof
81:22 Corvallis, OR (X, 4-10-81)
(Environmental Pollution Control. Inc.)
(shifting burden when grantee awards to
apparent nonresponsive bidder).
81:24 El Dorado Irrigation District,
CA (DC. 4-13-81) (Lotus Const.)
(protestor's, where award to apparent
low bidder).
81:33 Lynchburg. OH (V, 4-30-61)
(Dow Const.) (failure to rebut sworn
statements).
81:45 Pasadena. TX (VI. 8-17-82)
(Parkson) (shifting throughout restrictive
specification protest).
81:69 Houma, LA (VI, 8-19-81)
(Hydromatic Pump) (shifting).
81:80 Sacramento County. CA (IX.
10-2-81) (Westates Carbon Co.) (sole
source procurement—shifting burden).
81:85 Sacramento, CA (DC. 10-14-61)
(Dredge Masters International)
(grantee's, for determining apparent low
bid nonresponsive).
8}:106 Gower, MO (VII. 12-29-81)
(Empire Generator) (protestant must
show restrictive specification excluded
it).
82:20 Baltimore, MD (III, 4-1-82) (}.
Vinton Schafer & Sons) (grantee's, if
rejects apparent low bidder).
-------
BURDEN OF PROOF
(CONTINUED)
82:27 Eveleth. MN (V, 5-3-82)
(Gridor Const.) (protestor's, if award to
apparent low bidder).
82:37 Culhnan, AL (TV, 7-6-«2) (Cal
Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew and
Assoc.) (grantee's, if award not to low
bidder).
82:41 Abilene, TX (VI 7-27-82) (R&S
Engineering) (shifting on restrictive
specifications).
82:43 Brockton. MA (L 8-18-62)
(Tenco Hydro) (grantee must show
minimum performance needs) (grantee
must prove untimely appeal).
82:45 Pasadena. TX (VL 8-17-62)
(Parkson) (protestor must show product
excluded).
82:49 Dumas. AR (VL 9-7-82) (Hiade
Engineering) (shifting throughout
restrictive specification protest).
82:61 El Dorado, KS (YD. 11-16-62)
(Oursler Brothers Const) (grantee must
show rational basis for exclusionary
design requirements).
82:66 Smyrna. TN (TV. 11-29-82)
(Charles Finch Co. and Waterman
Industries) (grantee's, where protestor
proves restrictive specification).
Burden of Proof
1. OeKalb County. GA (TV, 2-29-80)
(SoutheMt Grading. Inc.) (on procurement
agency in award to other than low bidder).
2. Cordele, GA (IV. 5-1-80) (Franklin
Aluminum Division/Hoover Universal. Inc.)
(on protester in restrictive specification
claim).
3. Clarksville, TN (IV. 0-5-80) (Penetryn
Systems, Inc.) (on procurement agency if low
bidder is nonresponsive).
4. Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board. UT (Vffl, 11-20-80) (Western Utility
Contractors, Inc.) (on protester to show
violation of procurement principles).
Burden of Proof
1. Bend. OR (X. 5-15-79) (Industrial
Pump Sales Co.) (burden on grantee)
2. Cleveland Regional Sewar District,
OH—clarification (V, 12-28-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.)
3. Laurens County, SC (TV, 7-10-79)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co., et al.)
4. Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside, CA
(K. 7-23-79; errata 9-21-79) (Radco
Construction, Inc.)
5. Skagit County, WA (X, 5-4-79)
(Glantz Supply, Inc.)
6. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, IL (V, 10-11-79)
(Morrison-Knudsen-Paschen)
(mistake)
Burden of Proof (eg . § 35 939(8). as well as
subtler issues)
1 KitsapCount\ Washington IX. 2-3-7H)
(Will Construction Co.. Inc ) where granicc
md\ be dvxardmg to other than low bidder|
2. Webster. lowd (VII. 2-10-78)
(Environmental Systems Division of George
A. Hormel * Co. Inc.)
3. Efftngham. Illinois (V. 3-6-78) (Mdutz N
Oren. Inc.) (failure of prime to list line itt-m
prices in bid)
4 Turloclv. California |IX. J-{>-78) (Ri«.i
Inc )
5. Southern Clinton Count>. Michigan (V.
8-11-78) (A. Z. Shmina) (for third low b.iddrt
where low prime fails to include all
subcontractor names and prices .it time of biJ
submission)
6. Toppenish. Washington (X. 10-20-7HI
(Ridge Construction Co.) (burden shifting
from protestant to grantee)
7. Indidnapolis. Indiana (V. 10-31-78)
(Allis-Chalmers) (non-restrictive specification
protest)
Burden of Proof (§ 35.939(g)).
1. Omaha. Nebraska (VII. 9-14-74 >
(DaLamoster Division—ACCO)
2. Grand Forks, North Dakota (VIII.
9-25-74) (Komline-Sanderson)
3. Phoenix. New York (II. 5-7-76)
(Vincent J. Fasano Inc.)
4. Round Hill. Virginia (III. 5-13-76)
(Frank L. Black Jr.)
5. Sioux City, Iowa (VII. 7-12-76)
(U.S. Enviro-Con. Inc.)
6. Norwalk. Connecticut (I, 11-16-76)
(Brunalli Construction Co.)
7. Fairfax, Virginia (III. 4-14-77)
(Concrete Pipe
-------
CHOICE OF LAW
State and Local Law
84:05 City of New York, NY (II 2-2-84]
(Schiavone Const. Co. & Worth
Engineering, Inc., A Joint Venture)
(local law unduly restricting
competition by creating local
preference is unenforceable on EPA
project).
84:30 County of Erie, NY (II, 8-16-64}
[Amadori Const. Co.] (state law did
not give grantee unlimited
discretion in determining low
bidder).
84:53 MSD of Greater Chicago, IL (V,
12-13-84) (Moretrench American
Corp.] (deference to grantee
interpretation of State licensing
law).
Choree of Law
A. General
83:34 New Concord. OH (V. 6-10-83)
[Adams Robinson Enterprise. Inc.)
(EPA reliance on grantee
interpretation of state and local law).
63:51 Santa Barbara, CA (IX. 8-15-83)
(Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
Co.] (under State law warranty
qualification did not negate express
warranty).
83:53 New Haven. CT (I. 8-19-63)
(Blakeslee arpaia Chapman. Inc.}
(interpretation of local law—
deference to City's legal opinion).
83:61 Johnston. OH (V. 10-24-83)
{Zimpro, Inc.) (protestor barred from
immediate protest where issues
primarily determined by state law).
83:66 Boston. MA (1.12-&-83)
(Schiavone Consi, Co.) (deference to
grantee interpretation where State
law unclear and no overriding federal
principle).
B. Local Law
83:07 Oklahoma City. OK (VI. 2-4-83?
(£>./. Domas, Inc.] (requiring
submission of duplicate copies of
birs).
C. State Law
83:05 Morton. MS (IV. 1-25-83)
(Associated Cos/it. Inc.) (City
attorney opinion on state licensing
requirement).
83:13 Sandpoint ID (X. 3-3-83) (Lyding
Const.. Co.) (listing subcontractors
required, no overriding federal
interest).
Choice of Law
State Law
81:09 Wilmington. DE (ID, Z-12-81)
(Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley) (grantee may
make price cap matter of
responsiveness).
81:67 Wanaque Sewerage Authority,
NJ (II. 8-18-81) (A. Cestone Co.)
(correcting bid and displacing low
bidder).
81:78 Lake County, CA (EC 9-24-81)
(Rickel Manufacturing Corp.) (grantee's
attorney's opinion interpreting state law
supports award).
82:21 Fallbrook Sanitary District CA
(IX. 4-4-62) (Metro-Young/Lopez Con«U
A Joint Venture) (grantee's
interpretation).
8222 Goldendale, WA (X 4-18-82)
(IMCO General Const) (state law
requiring bid rejection when
82:89 Globe. AZ (DC 12-8-82]
(Mercury Const, Inc.) (protest
proceedings governed by local law).
Choice of Law
A. Central
No entries.
A Fundamental Federal Procurement
Principles
1. Colfax Public Service District VW (in.
8-29-80) (Salerno Brothers, Inc.) (bid
rejection for failure to acknowledge wage
rate addendum).
I Alma. NE (YD, 9-4-40) (William
Anderson Company. Inc.) (bidders advised of
basis for evaluation).
C GAO Decisions—Effect of
1. Norwich. CT (L 2-1-80] (Fantoni
Company) (absence of state law).
D. State Law
1. Mount Holly Sewerage Authority, NJ (II.
2-6-80) (Neshaminy Constructors, Inc.) (State
Court action).
2. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago. 0. (V. 2-27-80) (Shea-Kiewit) (post-
award contract daim).
3. Hastings. NE (VII. 3-7-80) (Horizon .
Construction Company; Olson Construction
Company) (State Open Meeting law).
4. Whiteville, NC (IV, 3-28-80) (Astor
Bolden Enterprises, Inc. T/A Quality Sanitary
Services Co.) (contractor bidding license.
number of bids).
5. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
District CA (DC. 5-8-40) (Burdick
Contractors. Inc.) (state law on bid mistake).
-------
CHOICE OF LAW (CONTINUED)
ft. Monmouth. OR (X. 8-21-ao) (Chinook
Pacific Corporation) (bid withdrawal).
7. Colfax Public Service District WV (in.
fr-29-80) (Salerno Brother*. Inc.) (itate law
does not require award to low bidder).
8. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District.
OH (V. 9-4-80) (D. B. Williams Electric. Inc.)
(relief for bid mistake).
9. Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board. UT (VOL 11-20-flO) (Western Utility
Contractors. Inc.) (correction of error in unit
price).
10. Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board. UT (VIII, 11-28-40) (Van Staveren
Construction. Inc.) (state license, dollar bid
amount).
11. Pierce County. WA (X. 12-23-80) (Frank
Coluccio Construction Company) (reversal of
decision to reject bids).
Choice of Law
A. General
1. Newton, IA (VD. 12-8-79) (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
B. Fundamental Federal Procurement
Principles
1. Atlanta, GA (IV, 3-21-79) (Fruin-
Conlon'Corp.) (inconsistent local
ordinance)
2. Gainsville. GA (IV, 6-15-79) (National
Hydro Systems, Inc. (II)) (evaluation
of equipment)
3. Skagit County. WA (X 5-4-79)
(Glantz Supply, Inc.)
C. State Law
1. Caldwell, ID (X, H-l-79) (Neilson 4
Co)
2. Detroit, MI (V, 8-29-79) (C. J. Rogers,
et al.. A Joint Venture) (availability of
local share)
3. Detroit, MI (V, 12-11-79) (Pollutech
Inc. and Glenn E. Wash Associates, A
Joint Venture) (material deviation
fromlFB)
4. Detroit MI (V, 12-11-79) (Dynamic
Construction Co.)
5. Jackson, CA (DC, 7-5-79) (Joseph R.
Ramos Pipeline Engineering)
(inaccuracies/irregularities in bid)
*8. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, IL (V, 10-11-79)
(Morrison-Knudsen-Paschen)
(mistake)
Choice of Law—General.
•1. New York City. New York (II. 1-12-781
(Schiavone Construction Co.) (public interest
standard: mistake—bidder intent rule) \\'ote
The determination was affirmed in Schiavone
Construction Co. v. Sumowitz. 451 F.Supp 29
(S.D.N.Y. 1978): aff'd without opinion. 578
F.2d 1370(2dCir. 1978)|.
2. Kitsap County. Washington (X. 2-3-78)
(Will Construction Co.. Inc.)
3. Washington County. Oregon (X. 7-31-78)
(North American Contractors Inc.)
(fundamental fairness: need for competition)
'4. San Francisco. California (IX. 8-9-78)
(Slaltery Assoc.. Fischbach and Moore Inc.
and Morrison-Knudsen Co.. joint venture)
(specification language as controlling—
federalizing local law issues)
5. Onondaga County, New York (II. 8-23-
78) (Pizzagalli Construction Co. and |ohn W.
Cowper Co. Inc.) (public interest standard:
mistake—bidder intent rule)
f, Topponish. Washington (X. 10-20-78)
(Kul^f Construction Co.) (conformance to
boiti slate and federal principles)
Choice of Law—Fundamental Federal
Procurement Principles /see also. Rational
/y,.-'.s- Test'/.
1 Newcastle. Indiana (V. 5-18-78) (Spencer
] i:rbine Co.) (fair evaluation of subcontract
offers)
Choice of Law—State Law, Applicability of
• y 5 § 35.936-2. 35.937-5 and 35 939(|)(3|).
1 Niiigra County Sewer District (No. 1).
\Cw York (II. 10-18-78) (Environment One
Cnip) (building code approvals)
Choice of Law—General
1. Alexandria. Virginia (III. 4-4-75)
(taxes) (John C. Grimberg. inc.)
2. Davpnport, Iowa (VII, 4-11-75)
(Lametti & Sons)
3. Fresno, California (IX, 7-10-75)
(Dorfrnan Construction Co.)
4. Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation
Agency. California (IX. 8-21-75) (Jos.
Ramos Co.; and Contri-Hood)
5. Henry. South Dakota (VIII. 9-15-
75) (Henningsen Construction Co.)
6. Sunnyvale, California (IX, 12-5-
75) (ABF Contractors)
1. Clark County (Las Vegas), Sani-
tary District (No. 1). Nevada (IX 12-
24-75) (Bovee & Crail Construction
Co.)
8. Palmer Lake, Colorado (VIII, l-
16-76) (Dugan Construction Co.)
-------
DEFERRAL OF PROCUREMENT
ACTION
Deferral of Procurement Action (§ 5 35 938-
4(h)(5) and 35.939(h|) (see also. A^ard—
Prime Contract).
1. Harrington. Illinois (V. 10-20-78) (I'lililv
& Industrial Construction Co.)
1. Westchester Co.. New York (II. 3-
3-76) (General Building Contractors)
2. Lynn. Massachusetts (I, 10-21-76)
(A/E) (Clinton Bogert Associates)
3. Rhode Island Statewide Planning
Program (I. 4-26-77) (§208 grant) (C.
E. Maguire Inc.)
4. Jackson. Mississippi (IV, 8-19-77)
(restrictive specifications) (American
Cast Iron Pipe Co.)
5. Toms Brook-Maurertown, Virginia
(III. 9-20-77) (National Hydro Sys-
tems) "
6. Contra Costa County. California
(IX, 10-25-77) (Armco Steel)
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy
84:29 City of New York, NY (tt 5-15-
84) (Terminal Const. Corp., and
Fairfield Service Company) (appeal
dismissed where letter to grantee
did not invoke protest procedures).
84:38 Town of Westborough. MA (10-
2-84) (Lynch, et at.} (letter advising
grantee of contemplated legal action
does not constitute valid protest).
HARMLESS ERROR
Hanntau Error
81:87 Cridersville, OH (V, 10-16-81)
(Miami Valley Contractors) (omission of
MBE guidance from IFB).
81:90 Chicago MSD, IL (V. 10-27-«l)
(S.A. HeaJy, et aJ.) (reconsideration of
81:76) (ambiguous MBE requirements).
82:45 Pasadena, TX (VL 8-17-82)
(Parkson) (actual notice of reason for
rejection not given).
Harmless Error
83:55 Haysville, KS [Reconsideration]
(VII, 2-14-83) (WalkerProcess Corp.)
(procedural error by not distributing
engineer's letter).
83:03 Columbus. OH [Reconsideration]
(V, 6-6-83) (Cobey Metro—Waste
Composting System. Inc.) (incorrect
EPA conclusion that grantee had
authority to use a sole source.
83:27 Port Arthur. TX (V, 5-12-83)
(Robert Bossow, Inc.) (where reliance
on unclear bid evaluation method).
83:36 Bentonsville, AR (VI, 6-14-83)
(Archer Henry Const., Co.)
(ambiguous IFB description of bid
evaluation method).
83:48 Heber Spring. AR (VI. 8-2-83)
(Trigon Engineering Co.) (no prejudice
resulted from imperfect bid evaluation
process).
-------
CHOICE OF LAW
(CONTINUED)
9. Huston, Louisiana (VI. 3-18-76) •
(Allan J. Harris Co.. Inc.)
10. Concord. North Carolina (IV. 10-
8-76) (Mercury Construction Co.)
•11. St. Paul (Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission), Minnesota (V,
12-3-76) (Kvalsten Electric)
12. Bradford. Vermont (I. 3-4-77)
(Cummings)
•13. St. Paul (Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission), Minnesota (V,
5-3-77) (Palco; and Kraus-Anderson)
Choice of Law—Federal Procurement
;.;.':,-, Applicability of (§ 35.936-10).
1 Denver (City), Colorado (VIII, 4-
J'J-74) (Pinkard Donovan)
2. Englewood and Littleton, Colora-
do i.VIII, 2-10-75) (Air Products &
Chemicals Inc.)
3. Woonsocket, Rhode Island (I, 6-
20-75) (Westcott Construction Co.)
4. South Portland, Maine (I. 10-7-75)
(Pizzasalli Construction Co.)
5. Winter Haven, Florida (IV 11-26-
75) (Griffin Construction Co.)
C/iojcc of Law—Fundamental Federal
Procurement Principles (.see also,
Rational Basis Test).
•1. Monroe. Washington (X, 1-9-76)
(Will Construction Co.)
2. Bergen County. New Jersey (II, 9-
28-76) (Wm. L. Crow-Wolff & Munier,
Joint Venture)
3. Puerto Rico Aqueduct .
1. Lowell, Massachusetts (I, 4-1-76)
(United Electrical Contractors)
2. Lowell. Massachusetts (I. 4-2-76)
(Honeywell Corp.)
3. Haverstraw, New York (II, 6-24-
76) (Fletcher Creamer & Son)
4. Denver (City and County), Colora-
do (VIII, 7-9-76) (Prank Briscoe Co..
Inc.)
5. McKinleyville Community Sani-
tary District (Humboldt Co.). Califor-
nia (IX, 8-13-76) (McGuire & Hester)
6. San Mateo. California (IX, 8-17-
76) (Elmer Freethy)
7. Middlesex (Bound Brook Pump
Station), New Jersey (II, 6-3-77) (Cam-
penella Construction Co.)
8. Middlesex (Sayreville Relief Pump
Station), New Jersey (II, 6-9-77) (Ter-
minal Construction Co.)
9. San Francisco, California (IX, 6-
20-77) (McKee-Berger-Mansueto)
10. Sonoma, California (IX. 6-30-77)
(P. C. Jensen)
11. Cumming. Georgia (IV, 9-28-77)
(NewKirk Construction Co.)
-------
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction
84:02 City of Bemidji, MN (V, l-18-«4)
(Fiber-Dyne, Inc.) (supplier
substitution by contractor is not
protestable as a grantee
procurement action).
84:08 Western Carolina Regional
Sewer Authority, Greenvill. SC
(Reconsideration) (IV, 6-18-85)
(Ashbrook-Simon-Harttey) (bid
protest not proper forum for
disputing eligibility of costs).
84:09 City of Los Cruches. NM (VI. 2-
27-84) (Mass Transfer, Inc.)
(equipment exclusion by basic
design decision, not protestable).
84:10 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist of \
Greater Chicago, IL (V, 3-l-«4)
(Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
(allegation that bidder cannot
satisfy specification is
responsiblity/contract
administration matter and not
protestable).
84.38 Town of Westborough. MA (L
10-2-84) (Lynch, et al.) (refusal of
grantee to require subcontractor
substitution is not protestable by
subcontractor).
Jurisdiction
83:04 Globe. AZ (IX. 1-25-83) (Brown *
Caldwell) (grantee procurement
action premature where prior EPA
approvalof A/E contract not
obtained).
83:11 LaPorte, TX (VI, 2-18-83) [Jess
Loveless Const., Co.) (reprocuremnt of
services after contractor quits job).
83:33 Joplin. MI (IX, 8-6-83) (Advance
Constructors, Inc.} (summary
dismissal where protest based solely
on Federal Procurement regulations
, not adopted by EPA regulations).
83:37 Central Valley, UT (VIII. 6-17-83)
(American Surfpac, Inc.) (selection of
filter media not broad design
decision—protestable).
83:57 Sod Run. Harford County, MD
(in, 10-7-83) (CESCO, Inc.)
(equipment substitution not
protestable).
83:58 Evanston. WY (VIII10-18-83)
(WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
(equipment substitution by contractor
not protestable procurement action).
83:61 Johnstown. OH (V, 10-24-83)
(Zimpro, Inc.) (subcontractor
substitution by contractor not
protestable].
83:63 Monterey, CA (IX, 11-4-33)
(Power Systems) (contract obligations
not addressable in bid protest).
83:66 Boston, MA (L 12-9-83)
(Schiavone Const Co.) (violation of
State law not protestable unless
contravening federal requirement).
Jurisdiction
81:01 N.Y. State DEC, NY (IL 1-7-81)
(Sweda Enterprises) (firms representing
other clients not protestable).
81:05 Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
Sewer Authority, PR (II. 1-29-81)
(Redondo Const) (bid withdrawn
because of mistake not subject to EPA
review).
81:08 Morgantowrl WV (Itt 2-1-81)
(Clow Co.) (prior EPA approval does not
bar review)
81:26 Loganviile. GA (IV, 4-14-81)
(Miller, Stevenson ft Steininchen)
(contract termination dispute).
81:41 Grand Haven. MI (V, 8-5-81)
(Equipment ft Gravel) (procurement of
services beyond grant scope).
81:49 Los Angeles County, CA (DC. 7-
1-81) (Dresser Industries) (competitor
subcontractor's compliance with
equipment specifications not
protestable)
81:59 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission. OR (X. 7-30-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const and Assoc.)
(whether competing bidder will meet
MBE goal not protestable).
81:64 Loganviile, GA (TV, 8-14-81)
(Flygt Corp.) (personal financial loss not
matter of contract award propriety).
81:66 Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage
Authority, N] (IL 8-18-81) (Standard
Engineers and Const) (equitable
adjustment claim not protestable).
81:84 Russian River County
Sanitation District CA (DC. 10-14-81)
(Dan Caputo ft Wagner Const.)
(withholding payment not pro testable).
-------
JURISDICTION
UED)
81:91 Wettem Monmouth Utilities
Authority. NJ (IL 10-29-81) (Parcoa)
(failure to pay contractor not
protestable).
81:98 Atlanta. GA (TV, 11-13-81)
(Fiiher ft Porter Co.) (contract
performance and administration are
pott-award matters not protestable).
81:101 Ewing Lawrence Sewerage
Authority. NJ (0.12-14-81) (Neshaminy
Const.) (substitution of subcontractor
not protestable).
82:02 Rysh-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (EL1-22-82) (R * M Assoc.) (state
approval of similar facilities not
protestable).
82.-07 Chattanooga, TN (IV, 2-18-82)
(Spencer Turbine Co.) (basic design
decision to use existing structure not
protestable).
82:23 Passaic Valley. N] (IL. 4-20-82)
(Rochester Pump and Machine)
(subcontractors selection of supplier not
protestable).
82:24 El Dorado, KS (VTJ, 4-20-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const.) (equipment
rejection matter of.contract
administration).
82:29 Syracuse. NY (II. 5-18-82) (Bat-
Con. Inc.) (withholding payments to
contractors not protestable).
82:39 Russian River. CA (IX 7-20-
82) (Dan Caputo Co. and Wagner Co.. A
Joint Venture) (contract administration
dispute not protestable).
82:42 Philadelphia, PA (TIL 7-28-82)
(Carr & Duff) (failure to negotiate
change order not protestable).
82:57 Cape May County MUA. N) (II.
11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Corp.
and Fairfield Service Co.) (basic project
designs not protestable).
82:61 El Dorado, KS (Vn. 11-18-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const] (jurisdiction to
consider reconsideration request).
82:84 Shady Spring PSD, VW (HI. 11-
22-82) (Davis Water & Waste Industries.
Inc.) (subcontractor substitution not
protestable).
Jurisdiction
1. Pima County. AZ (IX 2-20-80) (Ameron)
(change order).
2. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago. IL (V. 2-27-80) (Shea-Kiewit)
(change order).
3. Suffolk County. NY (IL 3-3-80) (Davis
Construction Corp.) (retainage).
4. Metropolitan Sanitary Disrict of Greater
Chicago. 0. (V. 3-7-80) (Joint Venture of Pora
Construction Company and Minority-
Majority Construction Company) (delay
claim).
5. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago. Q. (V. 3-27-60) (Herlihy Mid-
Continent Company) (claims).
8. Northwest Bergen County Sewer
Authority. NJ (TL 5-5-60) (Interpace
Corporation) (contract interpretation).
7. Portland. OR (X. 8-12-80) (Robbins A
Myers, Inc.) (change order).
8. County of Nassau. NY (II. 8-7-60)
(Komline-Sanderson Engineering
Corporation) (equipment substitution).
9. Portland. OR (X 8-7-60) (Robbins ft
Myers. Inc.) (change order).
10. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District.
OH (V. 9-4-80) (D. E. Williams Electric. Inc.)
(State law as to remedy for bid mistake).
Jurisdiction
1. Albuquerque, NM [VI, 2-2-79) (Kent
Nowlin Construction Co.)
2. Clarksburg. MA (I. 8-25-79) (Curran
Associates, Inc.)
*3. Conneaut, OH (V, 7-18-79) (Hoff-
Weston)
4. Detroit. MI (V, 6-29-79) (C. T. Rogers
Construction Co., et al., A Joint
Venture) (State or local law question)
5. Gainesville. GA (IV. 6-15-79)
(National Hydro Systems, Inc., (n))
(by or for the grantee)
6. Hannibal. MO (VU, 6-7-79) (U.S.
' Enviro-Con, Inc.) (lack of direct
grantee involvement)
7. Howard County. MO (HI, 2-15-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.) (not
by or for grantee)
8. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, IL (V. 8-16-79)
(Troesch Trucking. Inc.)
10
-------
JURISDICTION (CONTtNUED
*9. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, IL (V. 10-11-79)
(Morrison-Knudsen-Paschen)
(mistake)
10. Middletown. DE (TO. 9-17-79) (Ml.
Joy Construction, Co.) (change order is
not procurement)
•11. Muskegon County. MI (V, 7-29-79)
(Video Media Corp.) (post
performance claims]
12. Newton, IA (VII, 12-6-79) (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.
(forfeiture of bond)
13. Frederick County. MD (HI. 4-19-79)
(Conewago Contractors. Inc.)
(retainage not a procurement issue)
14. Sterling. IL (V. 3-9-79) (Neptune CPC
Engineering Corp.)
15. Stillwater, OK (VI, 3-1-79) (Robicon
Corp.) (subcontracts)
16. Suffolk County. NY (H. 9-15-79)
(Spencer, White & Prentis, Inc. and
Seatec International. Ltd., A Joint
Venture) (claims)
Jurisdiction (§35.939(j)) (but see.
System Design; A/E Procurement;
Choice of Law—State Law; Sub-
contracts; Choice of Law—Federal
Procurement Law).
1. District of Columbia (Blue Plains)
(III, 2-20-75) (} 35.9390X5)) (Kenics
Corp.)
2. Rhinelander, Wisconsin (V. 3-31-
76) (subcontractor selection) (EPCO—
Hormel)
3. Lowell. Massachusetts (I. 4-1-76)
(§35.939(j)(3)) (United Electrical Con-
tractors)
4. Lowell. Massachusetts (I. 4-2-76)
(5 35.939(jX3)) (Honeywell Corp.)
5. Danville. Illinois (V. 4-15-76)
(Honeywell Corp.)
1. Mountamlop. Pennsylvania (III. 1-5-78)
(National Hydro Systems. Inc.) (antitrust
issues subcontract—business |udgmon: inlrl
2. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI 2-l-"Hl
(Emironmentul Equipment Corp ) (subtler—
grantee involvement)
'3. Knoxville. Tennessee^IV. 2-ft-78) (Ro\
F Weston Inc.) (A/E procurement: local
requirements)
4 East Bay Discharges Authority.
California (IX. 2-15-78) (R. D. Smith) (A 'F-
subagreements)
5. Turlock. California (IX. 3-6-78) |Ri (Can-Tex)
•15. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (VI.
5-18-77) (grantee involvement; by or
for) (Ingersoll-Rand I)
16. Middlesex (Bound Brook Pump
Station). New Jersey (II. 6-3-77) (Cam-
penella Construction Co.)
17. Middlesex (Sayreville Relief
Pump Station). New Jersey (II, 6-9-77)
(Terminal Construction Co.)
18. San Francisco, California (IX. 6-
20-77) (A/E; and §35.939(j)<3)>
(McKee-Berger-Mfensueto Inc.)
19. Sonoma, California (IX, 6-30-77)
(§ 35.939(JX3)) (P. C. Jensen)
20. Newton. North Carolina (IV. 7-
17-77) (project grant ineligible) (Caro-
lina Concrete Pipe)
•21. Oklahoma City. Oklahoma (VI.
7-25-77) (grantee involvement; by or
for) (Carborundem)
22. Cumming. Georgia (IV, 9-28-17)
(Newkirk Construction Co.)
•23. McFarland, California (IX, 9-
29-77) (grantee involvement; by or for)
(Lagoon Aeration Corp.)
24. Orange County, California (IX.
11-2-77) (§35.939(j)<5)) (Pentech Divi-
sion of Houdaille Industries)
25. Loxahatchee River Environmen-
tal Control District, Florida (IV, 11-3-
77) (Guy Villa & Sons)
26. Amherst, New York (II. 11-22-77)
(Smith it, Associates)
27. Bridgewater, New Jersey (II. 12-
2-77) (Lombardo Contracting Co.)
28. Monterey Peninsula Water Pollu-
tion Control Agency, California (IX,
12-9-77) (J. M. Bush)
11
-------
PROCEDURE
Procedure
84:09 City of Los Cruches, NM
{Reconsideration} [VI, 2-27-84)
(A/as* Transfer. Inc.] (accepting
evidence on appeal unnecessary
where facts not relevant to issues in
bid protest).
84:10 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago, IL
[Reconsideration] (V, 4-12-84)
(PremierElectrical Const. Co.) (if
protester challenges specifications.
it must submit copy with appeal).
84:22 Mercer County. NW (IL 5-7-84)
(RDP Company} (protest
determination by consulting
engineer appropriate where acting
as grantee's agent) (appeal
defective for failure to include copy
of grantee's determination).
84:24 City of Leominster. MA (L 6-11-
84) (P. Gioioso # Sana. Inc.)
(additional grantee rationale for
rejecting all bids cannot be relied
upon on appeal).
84:2B Riverton, WY (VIIL 7-13-**)
(Martel Const.. Co., Inc.) (appeal
filed before improper EPA official
"may be considered).
84:34 Glens Falls, NY (IL 8-30-84)
(Dorr-Oliver, Inc.) (under Part 33
regulations grantee not required to
afford protester a conference
hearing).
84:38 Town of Westborough. MA (L
10-2-84) (Lynch, et al.} (appeal
dismissed for failure to file initial
protest).
84:39 Town of Thompson WTF
Kiamesha Lake Sewer Dist.
[Reconsideration] (II. 11-1-84)
(Ultraviolet Purification System,
Inc.] (appeal dismissed for failure to
include copy of grantee decision
and state what regulations were
violated).*
84:49 Richgrove, CA (IX, 11-8-84) (El
Camino Const. Co.) (filing appeal
with State agency does not
constitute valid appeal to EPA).
84 52 Possum Valley, PA (III. 11-9-84)
(U-Max Engineering & Const. Corp.)
(appeal dismissed for failure of
bidder to file proper initial protest).
84:55 City of Fort Lauderdale. FL (IV.
12-27-84) (Gray Engineering Group.
Inc.] (where appeal dismissed on
purely procedural grounds, briefs
and arguments on the substance
need not be permitted).
Procedure
83:01 Spearfish. SD (VEL 1-11-33)
(Rickel Manufacturing Co.) (decision
affirmed for different reasons than
supplied by grantee).
83:02 Columbus. OH (V, 1-12-83)
(Cobey Metro—Waste Composting
Systems; Inc.) (summary dismissal not
justified by failure to notice parties).
83:08 Hamilton. MT (Vffl. 2-8-S3) (4C
Plumbing.^ Heating. Inc.) (grantee
duty to afford opportunity to present
arguments).
83:13 Sandpoint, ID (X. 3-3-33) (Lydig
Const. Co.) (appeal premature before
grantee issues decision) (applicability
of Part 33 regulations). '
83:14 MSD Chicago. EL (V. 3-4-83) (R.
Rudnick 8- Co.. Inc. Sr Namat Const.
Co-) (hearing notice).
83:18 Halstead. Hutchinson. KS (VII. 3-
9-83) (Charles E. Stevens} (GAO
decisions used].
83:22 San Jose. CA (IX. 4-11-83)
(Johnson Controls. Inc.) (GAO
decisions used).
83:23 Jerseyville. IL (V. 4-14-83) Clow
Corp.) (citing Part 35 instead of Part 33
regulations cot fatal) (failure to seek
prequalification not failure to exhaust
administrative remedies where futile).
83:29 Fargo. ND (VIIL 5-18-83) (Van
Bergen S'Markson, Inc.: The Gray
* Engineering Group. Inc. Sr
Conservatek, Inc.) (where IFB
improperly included Part 35
regulations EPA applied Part 33
regulations with same result).
83:31: Younstown, OH (V. 5-31-83)
(Floyd Brown Associates) (new issues
may not be raised on appeal) (no
allegation how action violated
regulations).
83:37 Central Valley. UT (VDL 9-17-83)
(American Surfpac, Inc.) (telegraphic
notice perfecting appeal).
83:38 Sacramento. CA (VOL 5-17-83)
(Power Machine Co.) (adequate notice
where regulations not cited).
12
-------
PROCEDURE
(CONTINUED)
83:41 MSD. Chicago. IL (V, 6-24-83)
(Premier Electrical Coast. Co.) (bid
bond extension during protest).
83:48 Heber Spring. AR (VI. 8-2-33)
(Trigon Engineering Co.) (few EPA
restraints on manner grantee decides
protest).
83:49 MSD. Chicago. IL (V, 8-2-83)
(Dear Systems of Elk Crave) (grantee
dismissal for failure to attend hearing
and present detailed written
statement).
83:51 Santa Barbara. CA (DC. 8-15-83)
(Namtec Corp. & Unipn Enginnering
Co.) (failure to reference regulations
and notify parties not fatal).
33:81 Johnstown, OH (V. 10-24-83)
(Zunpro, Inc.) (specific regulations not
cited).
Procedure
81:10 N.Y. State DEC. NY (II. 2-13-
81] (Sweda Enterprises) (protest not
stating bases or referring to EPA
regulations).
81:17 McHenry, IL (V. 3-16-81) (Pio
Lombardo & Assoc.) failure to notify
interested parties having actual
knowledge).
81:32 Black Diamond. WA (X, 4-29-
81) (Bowen Const.) (bidder intent to hold
bid open although not formally
extended).
81:34 San Diego, CA (IX. 5-1-61)
(Westates Carbon) (small size and lack
of counsel no excuse for not knowing
and following procedures).
' 81:44 Tuolumme County. CA (IX, 6-
11-81) (Chaudhury & Assoc.) (appeal
filed with Regional Counsel not mailed
to interested parties).
81:46 San Francisco, CA (IX. 3-27-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractors
and Suppliers) (failure to notify
interested parties or cite regulations)
(time limit for filing not waived).
81:58 Ashland, KY (IV, 7-27-31)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (suppliers
appeal period not started by notice to
prime that equipment rejected) (failure
to notify interested parties).
81:59 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X, 7-30-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const, and Assoc.)
(no prejudice from failure to transmit
protest to other parties).
81:60 East Troy, WI (V. 7-31-81)
(Joseph Lorenz. Inc.) (failure to send
copy of initial protest did not require
dismissal).
81:89 Houma,LA(Vla-19-81)
(Hydromatic Pump) (detailed initial
protest telegram did not require
additional written protest).
81:81 Columbus. OH (V, 10-5-81)
(Cantwell Machinery} (omission of legal
report from grantee decision).
81:87 CridersviDe, OH (V. 10-18-81)
(Miami Valley Contractors) (appeal
bond unnecessary).
81:100 Harriman, TN (IV, 12-9-81)
(Municipal ft Industrial Pipe Services)
(failure to file detailed protest after
telegraphic notice).
82:09 Cobden. IL (V. 2-19-82) (R-J
Equipment Sales) (elements of protest
appeal).
82:10 Sauget. IL (V. 2-19-82) (GHA
Locks Joint Co.) (appeal not made moot
by addendum).
82:15 Philadelphia, PA (EL 3-16-82)
(Willierd. Inc.) (request for review need
not contain word "protest").
82:20 Baltimore. MD (m 4-1-82) (J.
Vinton Shafer * Sons) (no reference to
regulation).
82.24 El Dorado. KS (VIL 4-20-82)
(Oursier Brothers Const.) (protest appeal
most allege regulatory violation)
(reversed by reconsideration 82:61).
82:48 Claremont CA (DC 8-28-82)
(Peter Gavrilis) (summary dismissal of
nonmeritorious-protest).
82:61 El Dorado. KS (VIL 11-16-82)
(Oursier Brothers Const)
(reconsideration reversed 8234
concerning necessity of citing regulatory
violation in appeal).
1. Fall River. MA (L 2-13-80) (Passavant
Corporation) (notice to others).
2. Anne Arundel County, MD (HI. 2-13-80)
(Sabatini Company) (moot, premature,
readvertise).
3. DeKalb County. GA (IV, 2-29-80)
(Southeast Grading. Inc.) (authority to award
before resolution of subcontract protests,
notice to others).
4. ToUeton. AZ (DC 3-17-40) (Hydro
Conduit Corporation) (short notice of protest
hearing, notice to others).
5. Whiteville. NC (IV, 3-28-80) (Astor
Bolden Enterprises. Inc. T/A. Quality
Sanitary Services, Inc.] (failure to state basis.
notice to others).
13
-------
PROCEDURE (CONTINUED)
9. Soldotna. AK (X. 4-25-80) (Interstate
Company) (grantee's hearing procedure).
7. Little Rock. AR (VL4-29-80) (Autotrol
Corporation) (notice to others, raising new
issues at EPA review).
a Orange County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County. CA (DC. 5-22-80) (Ralph B.
Carter Co.; Komfine-Sanderson Engineering
Corp.) (time limits to present evidence).
Procedure
1. Aberdeen, MD (HI. 9-7-79) (Chemcon,
Inc.] (no proper protest w/o grantee
determination)
2. Bardstown, KY (IV, 1-3-79) (E. H.
Hughes Co. (I)) (notification of other
parties)
3. Decatur, Sanitary District IL (V, 2-15-
79] (Autotrol Corp.) (notice to all
interested parties)
5. Gainesville, GA (TV, 11-5-79)
(National Hydro Systems. Inc. (01))
(EPA de novo review)
6. Greenville. TX (VI, 5-31-79—
Reconsideration) (Ralph B. Carter Co.]
(Per Parkson Corp.)
7. Hageretown, MD (El. 1-4-79) (PCI
Ozone Corp.) (telegraphic
determination)
8. James Island Public Service District,
SC (IV, 5-2-79) (Pyramid Builders.
Inc.) (telegraphic determination]
9. Macon-Bibb County Water and
Sewage Authority, GA (TV. 3-16-79)
(Shirco, Inc.) (telegraphic
determination)
10. Meridian, MS (IV, 1-15-79)
-{Mississippi Pump and Equipment Co.)
11. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, IL [V. 8-18-79) "
(Troesch Trucking Inc.) (failure to file
with grantee)
12.Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority, FL (TV, 4-30-79) (Cobo Co.)
13.Middletown, DE (ffl, 9-17-79) (Mt. Joy
Construction Co.) (change order not
procurement)
* 14. Mill Hall, PA (HI. 1-29-79)
(Municipal and Industrial Pipe
Services, Ltd.) (failure to prosecute
appeal)
15. Monterey County, CA [DC, 2-28-79)
(Monterey Construction Surveys. Inc.)
16. Plainfield, CT (1.12-11-79)
(Greenman's Trucking. Inc.) (letter
full decision to follow)
17. Seaford. DE (III, 1-6-79) (National
Hydro Systems, Inc.) (grantee's failure
to comply with its harmless error)
18. Simpsonville, KY (IV, 4-17-79)
(Warner A. Broughman III and
Associates] (failure to file with
grantee)
Procedure (!§ 35.939 (a), (b). (I)] (see also.
Burden of Proof: Jurisdiction: Review—
Regional Administrator Authority: Standing;
Sua Sponte Summary Dispositions: Time
Limitations).
1. Clenwood Springs. Colorado (VIII. 1-13-
78) (Colorado Environmental Equipment. Inc.)
(failure to properly plead protest. §§ 35.939
(c). mmi
2. Sandusky. Ohio (V. 1-13-78) (Bay-Con
Corp-) (no proper protest to EPA without
grantee determination)
3. Gainesville. Georgia (IV. 1-17-78)
(National Hydro Systems. Inc. and Tuttle/
While Constructors) (bid*bond extension:
mootness)
4. West Bend. Wisconsin (V. 3-3-78)
(Oliver Construction Co. Inc ) (due process)
5. Turlock, California (IX. 3-6-78) (Riga
Inc.) (intervention of competitors)
6 Cldyton County. Georgia (IV. 4-19-78)
(National Hydro Systems. (" d! )
(prirtiupdlinn of an interested p.irty)
7. Front Royal. Virginia (III. 4-21-78) (I.yco-
Zf) (bid protest process not APA review)
8. Newton. North Carolina (IV. 4-25-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.] (consultant as
proper party)
9. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
(Westerly Plant). Ohio (V. 6-14-78)
(McLaughlin & Associates) (grnntee's
apparent threat to protestant for protest
action)
'10. Contra Costa County Sanitation
District No. 15. California—Reconsideration
(IX. 7-14-78) (Gladdmg-McBean Inc. and
Pacific Clay Products Co.) (intervention of
competitors in bid protest proceeding)
11. Goose Creek. South Carolina (IV. 7-24-
78) (Kenney and Assoc.) (notice of grantee
determination)
12. Onondaga County. New York—
Supplement (II. 9-7-78) (Pizzagalh
Construction Co. and John W. Cowper Co.
Inc.)
13. Knoxville. Tennessee (IV. 9-25-78) (R.
B. Carter) (withdrawal)
14. Grand Rapids. Michigan (V. 9-26-78)
(Infilco Degremont) (access to bids)
15. Guilderland. New York (II. 10-3-78)
(Clevepak Corp.) (state law claim: exclusive
sales arrangement)
16. Shreveport. Louisiana (VI. 10-25-78)
(Dumesml Construction Co. Inc.) (protests
withdrawn)
17. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-31-78)
(Allis-Chalmers) (deadlines for written
arguments)
18. Fairfield. New Jersey (II. 11-8-78)
(Autocon Industries) (failed to plead case as
required under EPA regulations)
19. Portage. Michigan (V. 12-20-78)
(lacobelli Construction Inc.) (no proper
prosiest to EPA without grantee
determination)
14
-------
PROCEDURE
CONTINUED)
Procedure (§ J5.939(/» (See also. Stand-
ing; Time Limitations; Jurisdic-
tion; Summary Dispositions;
Burden of Proof; Review—Regional
Administrator Authority).
1. Shreveport. Louisana (VI. 6-1-74)
(Section 8 grant) (Mainstay Corp.)
2. Jacksonville. Florida (IV, 8-12-74)
(protest pre-regulation) (Adrian Con-
struction Co.)
3. Haverstraw. New York (II, 6-24-
76) (Fletcher Creamer & Sons)
4. Chatham County (Isle of Hope),
Georgia (IV. 7-8-76) (pre-bid protest
resolution) (Kyle-Gifford-Hill Inc.)
5. Denver (City and County), Colora-
do (VIII. 7-9-76) (Frank Briscoe)
6. Cayce. South Carolina (IV. 7-18-
76) (Southeastern Concrete Products
Co.)
7. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester.
South Carolina (IV. 7-19-76) (§208
grant) (Davis & Floyd Engineers Inc.)
8. Boynton Beach/Delray Beach
Florida (IV. 10-14-76) (oral protest)
(Ecological Sen-ices Products Inc.)
9. Lynn, Massachusetts (I, 10-21-70;
(pre-grant award) (Clinton Bogert As-
sociates)
10. Detroit, Michigan (V. 11-10-76)
(Lotepro Corp.)
11. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 3-9-
77) (Loc Pump and Equipment)
•12. Dothan.-Alabama (IV. 3-10-77'
(full Regional Administrator revirw. :..
place of Grantee) (Infilco Degremont!
13. York. Pennsylvania (III, 4-22-77)
(Union Carbide Corp.)
14. Atlanta, Georgia (IV, 5-11-77)
(Mayer
-------
RATIONAL BASIS TEST
Rational Basis Test
84:02 City of Bemidji. NM (VV. 1-18-
84) (Fiber-Dyne. Inc.] (grantee
determination not reversed unless
clear error or lacks reasonable
basis).
84.07 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist of
Greater Chicago. IL (V. 2-6-84) (A./.
Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind. Inc., and
Klein Const. Co.) (EPA review of
appeal not limited to arguments
presented to grantee).
84:30 County of Erie, NY (IL 8-16-84)
(Amadori Const. Co.) (rigid
enforcement of words over
numerals reconciliation clause
lacked rational basis).
84:31 Trumbull County, OH (V. 8-24-
84) (/? £• K Constructors. Inc..)
(deference to grantee determination
that bidder is not responsible based
on poor past performance).
84:34 Glens Falls, NY (IL 8-30-84)
(Dorr-Oliver. Inc.) (deference to
affirmative determination of
responsibility based on technical
evaluation).
.84:35 Portage Sanitary BA, Portage, IN
(V, 8-31-84) (Gariup Const Co.,
Inc.] (deference to technical
decisions of grantee).
84:40 City of Lancaster. PA (IIL 10-16-
84) (Parkson Corp.) (bid rejected for
performance reasons).
Rational Basis Test
83:01 Spearfish. SD (Vm. 1-11-33)
(Rickel Manufacturing Co.) (no
rational basis for liquid cooled pump).
83:18 Perryville, MD (EL 3-21-33)
(Lyco Wastewater Equipment
Division) (no performance basis for
rejecting RBC equipment).
83:20 Los Angeles. CA (EC 3-28-83)
(Solar Turbines, Inc.) (engineering
design to use four turbines).
83:23 Jerseyviile. IL (V, 4-14-83) (Clow
Corp.) (for using brand name or equal
specifications instead of stating
technical requirements).
83:28 Sacramento. CA (Vm. 8-17-83)
(PowerMachine Co.) (defer to grantee
where it and protester have credible
cases).
83:41 MSO, Chicago. IL (V. 6-24-83).
(Premier Electrical Const., Co.)
(setting period for bid bond
extension).
83:55 Brazo River. TX (VI. 9-23-83)
{'Jeffery Manufacturing Div.)
(technical requirements need not be
only available choice).
83:62 Wayne. NB (VIL 10-31-83)
(Envirex, Inc.] (speculation of
equipment failure) (post ward
equipment substitution not required
by subcontractor price—no effect in
prime's price).
83:66 Boston, MA (L 12-9-83)
[Schiavone Const. Co.) (interpretation
of state law).
83:68 TrirCity. OR (X12-9-83)
(Dresser Industries. Inc.)
(specifications to achieve uniformity
in blowers by requiring single
manufacturer).
Rational Basis Test
81:18 Clermont County, IL (V. 3-18-
81) (Glenn Rhoades Const.) (EPA
reliance on grantee determination of
state/local law unless no rational basis).
81:39 Guam PAU (IX. 5-29-81) (John
Carollo Engineers—George Chen ft
Sons) (re-ranking A/E firms).
81.43 Honolulu. HI (IX. «-ll-«l)
(Hawaii Concrete Products) (vertical
cast pipe vs. centrifugal cast pipe).
81:58 Ashland. KY (IV. 7-27-81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (design
decision).
81:61 Southington. CT (L 8-7-81)
(Chemcon) (pump design).
81:68 Warren County MUA. NJ (IL 8-
19-81) (SchuykUl Products) (materials
limited without test results).
81:89 Houma. LA (VL 8-19-61)
(Hydromatic Pump) (minimum
performance needs of pumps)
(speculation of maintenance problems
not sufficient).
81:83 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority.
PA (III10-13-81) (R&M Astoc] (failure
16
-------
RATIONAL BASIS TEST
(CONTINUED)
to iubmit test data] (reversed by
reconsideration 82:02).
81:65 Sacramento. CA (IX 10-14-61)
(Dredge Masters International) (bid
evaluation).
81:89 Harford County, MD (Hi 10-
19-81) (Sdraylkill Products) (exclusion
of specific manufacturing process).
81:100 Harriman, TN (IV, 12-9-81)
(Municipal «• Industrial Pipe Services)
(single material grout required by soil
conditions).
82:01 Bowling Green, OH (V. 1-12-
82) (DCK Contracting) (limited EPA
review).
82:06 Tangier. Va (ffl. '2-11-82)
(Ultraviolet Purification Systems)
(experimental design).
82:07 Chattanooga, TN (IV. 2-18-82)
(Spencer Turbine Co.] (grantee reliance
on engineer).
8240 Sauget DL (V, 2-19-82) (GHA
Lock joint Co.) (sustain grantee where
rational basis).
82:12 Channelview, TX (VL 3-8-82)
(Euramca Ecosystems) (erroneous legal
premise not rational).
82:17 Lummi Indian, WA (X 3-26-
82) (Walker Processing Corp.)
(deference to engineering judgment).
82:18 Miami-Oade water ft Sewer
Authority. FL (IV, 3-31-82 (Worthington
Group) (engineer's basis for
specification).
82:21 Fallbrook Sanitary District CA
(IX 4-6-82) (Metro—Young/Lopez
Const, A Joint Venture) (grantee's
interpretation and application of state
law).
82:22 Goidendale. WA PL 4-18-42)
(IMCO General Const) (determination
that ambfguity did not give substantial
advantage to others).
82:26 Akron, OH (V. 5-3-82)
(Environmental Elements] (deference to
technical judgment).
82:27 Eveleth, MN (V, 5-3-82)
(Gridor Const) (waiving irregularities in
bid).
82:31 Menominee, MI (V. 6-8-«2)
(Krygoeki Const.) (finding bid to be
nonconditional in spite of alternative
proposal).
82:34 Monterey. CA (IX 6-24-82)
(Frank M. Booth, Inc.) (specification
requiring use of nickel, minimum
performance needs).
8238 Fulton. NY (IL 7-18-82) (LOG
Pump and Equipment) (specification
based on minimum needs).
82:46 Spearfisn, SD (VID. 8-19-82)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.)
(minimum performance needs).
82:49 Dumas, AR (VL 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering) (minimum performance
needs).
82:53 Monterey, CA (DC. 9-29-82)
(Frank M. Booth. Inc.) (longevity in
service).
82:58 Rochester Pure Waters District.
NY (IL 11-3-82) (Schiavone Const./
Cotton Dean Underground Excavation
Co., Joint Venture) (award to low bidder
on highest cost alternate).
82:68 Smyrna. TN (IV, 11-29-82)
(Waterman Industries, and Charles
Finch Co.) (equipment rejection to be for
performance reasons not physical
differences).
82.-70 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission. OR (X 12-
22-82) (Robert Dougan Const.) (rejection
of all bids because equipment not
meeting specifications did satisfy
performance requirements).
Rational Basis Test
1. East Bay Dischargers Authority. CA (DC.
1-30-80) (Capital Control Company)
(equipment fails to meet salient
requirements).
2. Fall River. MA (I 2-13-80) (Passavant
Corporation) (no performance related
rational basis for manufacturers only).
3. Cordele. GA (IV. 4-10-80) (Ralph Healey
ft Associates. Inc.) (no rational basis for
manufacturers only).
4. Puyallup. WA (X 4-24-80) (Rodding-
Cleaning Machines. Inc.) (rational basis to
require ipecific method of mixing grout).
5. Orange County Sanitation Districts of
Orang* County. CA (IX. 5-22-40) (Ralph a
Carter Co.; Komline-Sanderson Engineering
Corp.) (high quality specifications had
rational basis).
8. County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County, CA (IX S-28-80) (Ingenoil-
Rand Co.) (hard abrasive surface for
centrifuge had rational basis).
7. Vista Sanitation District/Encina Joint
Powers. CA OX 7-30-60) (Don Todd
Associates) (evaluation of engineering
qualifications had rational basis).
& Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board. UT (Vm, 11-20-80) (Western Utility
Contractors. Inc.) (correction of unit price
mistake had rational basis).
17
-------
RATIONAL BASIS TEST
(CONTINUED)
82:41 Abilene. TX (VL 7-27-82) (R4S
Engineering] (minimum performance
needs itated as manufacturen only).
82:43 Brockton. MA (L S-16-82)
(Tenco Hydro) (minimum needs
justification).
82:44 Memphis. TN (IV, 8-16-82)
(B.F. Goodrich Co.) (exclusion of plastic
media bio filter not rational).
Rational Basis Test
1. Atlanta, GA (IV. 3-21-79) (Fruin-
Conlon Corp.)
2. Caldwell. ID (X. 11-1-79) (Neilsen Co.)
3. Hannibal, MO (VII. 6-7-79) (U.S.
Enviro-Con, Inc.)
4. Laurens County, SC (IV, 7-10-79)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co., et al.)
5. Detroit MI (V, 6-29-79) (C. J. Rogers
Construction Co., et al., A Joint
Venture)
6. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, IL (V, 10-11-79)
(Morrison-Knudsen-Paschen) ,
7. Monterey County, CA (K. 2-28-79)
(Monterey Construction Surveys, Inc.)
8. Newton, LA (VII. 12-6-79) (Municipal
and IndustriaLPipe Services, Ltd.)
9. Portage, MI (V, 12-31-79) (Tom
Robinson 4 Son, Inc.)
10. Greenup County. KY (TV. 11-13-79)
fW. Rogers Co.)
11. West County Agency, CA (DC. 6-28-
79) (R. D. Smith)
Rational Basis Test (e.g.. 55 35.93ft-2(b).
35.939 (e)(4) and (j)(3)).
•1. Knoxville. Tennessee (IV. 2-8-78) (Roy
F. Weston Inc.) (A/E procurement—
evaluation of proposals)
2. Webster. Ipwa (VIL 2-10-78)
(Environmental Systems Division of G«orge
A. Hormel & Co. Inc.)
*3. Chester. South Carolina (IV. 3-29-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (selection of
single pipe material)
4. Clayton County. Georgia (IV. 4-19-78)
(National Hydro Systems Inc.. et al.}
5. Breese, Illinois (V, 10-18-78) (Midwest
Soil Products and Davco-Defiance) (use for
analysis of equipment item reviews)
6. Toppenish. Washington (X. 10-20-78)
(Ridge Construction Co.) (either federal or
sidle law)
7 Concord. North Carolina (IV. 1O-24-78)
(KUC/Enviro Development !nc )
Rational Basis Test.
1. Hannibal. Missouri (VII. 2-15-74)
(Sammons Construction Co.)
2. Omaha. Nebraska (VII, 9-14-74)
^Datarnaster Div.—ACCO)
3. Gainesville-Alachua * * * Board.
Florida (IV, 7-10-75) (Grumman Eco-
systems Corp.)
4. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Au-
thority, Florida (IV, 3-11-76) (George
Hyman Construction Co.)
5. Ruston. Louisiana (VI, 3-18-76)
(Allan H. Harris Co.)
6. Lowell. Massachusetts (I, 4-1-76)
(United Electrical Contractors)
7. Lowell, Massachusetts (I, 4-2-76—
(Honeywell Corp.)
8. Phoenix, New York (II, 5-7-76)
(Vincent J. Fasano)
9. Chatham County (Isle of Hope),
Georgia (IV. 7-8-76) (Kyle-Gifford-
Hill Inc.)
10. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester.
South Carolina (IV, 7-19-76) (§208
grant) (Davis & Floyd Engineers Inc.)
11. Sacramento, California (IX, 8-
12-76) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
12. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Au-
thority, Florida (IV, 9-27-76) (Altman-
Mvers Construction Co.)
•13. Concord, North Carolina (IV,
10-8-76) (Mercury Construction Co.)
14. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
(Northeast Plant) (III, 12-6-76) (Sov-
ereign Construction Company)
15. Bradford, Vermont (I, 3-4-77)
(Cummings)
•16. Dothan, Alabama (IV, 3-10-77)
(Infilco Degremont)
17. Pasadena. Texas (VI. 4-1-77)
(Union Carbide Corp.)
18. Sussex, Wisconsin (V. 4-14-77)
(Fischer & Porter)
19 Rhode Island Statewide Planning
Program (I, 4-26-77) (§208 grant) (C.
E. Maguire Inc. II)
20. Montgomery, Alabama (IV. 5-11-
77) (Envirotech)
21. Lynden. Washington (X. 5-16-77)
(Arcomm Construction Co.)
22. Ceres. California (IX. 6-20-77)
(Inman Inc.)
24. Cynthiana, Kentucky (IV, 8-11-
77) (Lyco-ZF)
25. Jackson, Mississippi (IV. 8-19-77)
(American Cast Iron Pipe Co.)
26. McFarland, California (IX, 9-29-
77) (Lagoon Aeration Corp.)
18
-------
RECONSIDERATION
(CONTINUED)
8455 City of Fort Lauderdale. FL
[Reconsideration] {IV, 12-27-84)
(Gray Engineering Croup, lac.}
(summarily dismissed where no
clear error of fact or law
demonstrated and protester's chief
complaint was that EPA did not
permit him to argue the substance of
this complaint where it was
untimely).
Reconsideration
B4.-08 Western Carolina Regional
Sewer Authority, Greenville, SC
(Reconsideration] (IV. 2-17-04)
(Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley)
(summarily dismissed for lack of
evidence of EPA mistake).
84rlO Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago. IL
[Reconsideration] (V, 1-3-84)
(Premier Electrical Const. Co.] (EPA
discretion—will review only where
determination dearly erroneous)
(determination affirmed on merits).
84:11 City of New York. NY
[Reconsideration] (II. 3-5-84]
(Bristol Babcock, Inc.)
(determination affirmed after
reconsideration granted to consider
merits).
84.26 Riverton. WY [Reconsideration]
(VIII. 7-13-84) (Martel Const. Co.,
Inc.) (discretionary review to be
exercised in limited situations)
(time limitation for filing appeal
applies to filing reconsideration
requests. Request denied because
filed 21 days after decision issued).
84:32 Bayshore Regional Sewerage
Authority, NJ [Reconsideration] (0.
11-1-84) (RAMEngineering. Inc.]
(affirmed for difference reasons).
84:39 Town of Thompson WTF
Kiamesha Lake Sewer Dist
[Reconsideration] (II. 10-16-85)
(Ultraviolet Purification System
Inc.] (denied reconsideration of
merits because of other procedural
deficiencies in protest).
84:54 Summit County, OH
(Reconsideration) (V. 12-28-64)
(Munttech. Inc.) (request denied
when beyond 7 days after receipt of
appeal determination).
Reconsideration
8235 Haysville, KS [Reconsideration!
(VEL 2-14-83) (Walker Process Corp.)
(affirmed 10-13-62 decision) (inherent
authority of EPA).
83:63 Elk Pinch. WV [Reconsideration]
(HL 1-7-83) (Kappe Associates. Inc.)
(cannot raise new argument based on
same facts).
83:03 Columbus. OH [Reconsideration]
(V. 6-6-83) (Cabey Metro-Waste
Composting System. lac.) (affirmed
prior decision — no legal error).
83:08 Western Carolina. SC
[Reconsideration] (TV. 5-6-83)
(Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley) (affirmed
prior decision].
83:24 Oklahoma City. OK
[Reconsideration] {VL 3-23-33)
(Fiberglass Engineered Products, Inc.)
(affirmed prior decision — no new
facts).-
83:37 Central Valley. UT
[Reconsideration] (Vm. 9-22-83)
(American Sarfpac. Inc.) (affirmed
' 83:42 — summarily dismissed as
untimely).
83:44 Streettboro. Ravenna. OH
[Reconsideration] (V, 8-28-83) (Robert
Bossow. Inc.) (affirmed prior •
decision — no legal error shown).
f ration
81:03 Pierce County, WA (X, 1-14-
81) (Frank Culuccio Const.) (substantial
error of law alleged) (affirmed 12-23-80
decision).
81:10 N.Y. State DEC, NY (II, 2-13-
81) (Sweda Enterprises) (affirmed 81:01).
81:28 Corvallis. OR (X. 4-22-81)
(Environmental Pollution Control, Inc.)
(cannot reargue points previously
discussed and decided or make new
contentions based on same facts
(affirmed 81:22).
81:32 Black Diamond, WA (X. 4-29-
81) (Bowen Const.) (affirmed 81:27).
81:52 Buncome County, NC (IV, 7-
17-81) (Carlon, Division of Indian Head)
(no new facts) (affirmed 81:36).
81:79 Ashland, KY (IV, 10/1/81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (affirmed
81:58).
81:90 Chicago MSD, IL (V, 10-27-81)
(S.A. Healy Co, et a/.} (affirmed 81:76).
19
-------
RECONSIDERATION
(CONTINUED)
82:02 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (HI, 1-22-82] (R&M Associates)
(clearly erroneous law or fact] (reversed
81:83].
82:03 Fort Wayne, IN (V, 1-25-82)
(Bates & Rogers Const.] (affirmed 81:88).
82:13 Santa Fe. NM (VL 3-9-82)
(Ranger Corist.) (renewal of same
arguments) (affirmed 82:08).
82:53 Monterey, CA (IX. 9-29-82)
(Frank M. Booth, Inc.] (evidence
available but not offered) (affirmed
82:34).
8258 Russian River, CA (IX 11-1-
82] (Dan Caputo Co.. and Wagner Const.
Co.. A joint Venture) (denied where no
mistakes, new evidence or error of law]
(affirmed 82:39). >-
82:61 El Dorado. KS (VD. 11-1-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const.) (legal error in
not permitting protest of restrictive
specifications) (reversed 82:24).
82:65 Spearfish. SD (VIII, ll-23-«2)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.)
(affirmed 82:46).
82:67 Cullman. AL (IV, 11-30-82)
(Cal Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew and
Assoc.) (no mistake, new evidence or
legal error) (affirmed 82:37).
Racouidantkn of AdmuiMtrativ*
DetenninanoM
1. Plma Comity, AZ [DC. 3-17-80] (Ameron)
(denied if issue ii not protntabie).
2. Checotnh, OK (VL 7-25-80) (Sherman
Machina and Iran Work*. Inc. [Per Lakeside
Equipment Corporation]} (dented if no
material factual mistake, new evidence or
legal error).
3. Portland. OR (X 8-7-W) (Rabbins It
Myers, Inc.) (decision affirmed when no
material error of law or fact).
4. Vista Sanitation District/Enema Joint
Powers. CA (DC. 9-l»-80) (Don Todd
Associates) (without new evidence or
arguments, no reconsideration to require MW
RFP rather than new evaluation of prior RFP).
Reconsideration of Administrative
Determinations
' 1. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
OH-Reconsideration (V, 10-18-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.) (Per
Norton Co.)
2. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
OH-Clarification (V, 12-28-79) (Water
Pollution Control Corp.)
3. Greenville, TX-Reconsideration (VI,
5-31-79) (Ralph B. Carter Co.] (Per
Parkson Corp.)
Reconsideration of Administrative
Determinations (but see Finality of
Administrative Determinations: where
appropriate see subject listing in 43 FR 29086-
95 (July 5-1978), for pre-1978 determinations).
1. Corvullis. Oregon—Reconsideration (X.
l-V.»-rH) (request of City of Corvalh.s)
(dflcrmmdtion of 12-G-77 affirmed)
2 Ohi'stfT. South Carolina—
Reconsideration (IV, b-2J-ra) (request of
Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (determination of
3-29-78 affirmed)
3. Contra Costa Coiwty Sanitation District
No. 15. California—Reconsideration (IX. 7-
14-7(1] (request pf Gladding-McBean Inc. .nid
Pacific. Clay Hroducts*Co.) (determination of
10_;:r,-78 iiffirmed in part, modified in part)
4. Onondaga County, New York—
Reconsideration (II. 7-19-78) (request of
Zimprn) (determination of 6-3l>-78 affirmed)
5 Ni-wtasllu. Indiana—Reconsideration (V.
a-23-7(l) (request of City of Newcastle)
(determination of 5-18-78 and intervening
correspondence clarified as to remedy)
Reconsideration of Administrative De-
terminations (but see. Finality of
Administrative Determinations).
1. Detroit. Michigan (V, 11-23-76)
(denied) (Lotepro Corp.)
2. North Shore Sanitary District. Il-
linois (V, 2-27-77) (denied) (Biospher-
ics Inc.)
3. Delano. California (IX. 4-15-77)
(denied) (California Vitrified Clay
Pipe Manufacturers)
M. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (IV. 9-1-
77) (denied) (Vito's Trucking «fe Exca-
vating Co.)
5. Jackson. Mississippi (IV. 10-25-77)
(denied) (American Cast Iron Pipe
Co.)
20
-------
REGULATIONS
Regulations
84:09 CityofLosCruches, NM(V1. 2-
27-84) [Mass Transfer, Inc.) (Part 33
not substantive change from Part
35).
84:13 New Hampshire Water Supply &
Pollution Control NH (L 3-28-64)
(Catamount Const, Inc.) (Part 35
procurement principles apply in
Part 33 regulations and
determinations under Part 35 may
be relied upon u precedent).
84:15 Mattabassett Oist. Regional
Sewer Auth., Cromwell CT (L 4-12-
84) (Peabody NJL, Inc.] (regulation
on listing requirement changed but
basic principles of Part 35 apply in
Part 33).
84:18 Town of Milford. MA (L 4-20-84)
(Euramca Ecosystems, Inc.) (where
prequalification information
package and rejection letter
erroneously cited Part 35 instead of
proper Part-33, no prejudice caused
by deciding protest under Part 33).
84:27 Metropolitan Sewer Dist,
Cinncinnati, OH (V. 7-18-84)
(Partisan Corp.) (Part 35 improperly
relied upon in a Part 33 protest
involving a specific regulation).
84:28 Libby. MT (Vffl. 8-9-84)
(Transamencan Contractors, Inc.)
(Part 33 regulations incorporated in
specifications—grantee decided
protest under Part 35—EPA decided
appeal using Part 33 reaching some
result).
Regulations
83:29 Fargo. ND (Vm. 5-18-83) (Van
Bergen &Markson, Inc.; Cray
Engineering Croup. Inc. &
Conservatek. Inc.) (where IF3
incorrectly included Part 35
regulations EPA applied Part 33).
83:46 Palatine. IL (V. 7-19-83) (Di
Paolo-Rosseiti. Joint Venture) (grantee
opted to use interim Part 33 by
reference in IFB).
83:68 Boston, MA (L 12-9-83)
(Schiavone Const., Co.) (grantee
indicated Part 33 applied by reference
in IFB).
21
-------
REVIEW BY EPA
Review
81:12 California SWRCB, CA (IX. 2-
26-81) (Navas Pipe Supply and Hydro
Conduit Co.) (review of delegated state
decision).
81:31 Gildford County Sewer
District. MI (VIII. 4-28-81) (Baltrusch
Const.) (role of EPA Regional
Administrator).
81:39 Guam PUA flX. 5-29-81) (John
Carollo Engineers — George Chen &
Sons. Inc.) (A/E procurement) (review of
A/E procurement to insure maximum
competition and compliance with
regulations).
81:74 Tifton. GA (TV. 9-1-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services)
(EPA review of determination by state
delegated authority).
81:87 Cridersville. OH (V. 10-16-81)
(Miami Valley Contractors) (issues
raised before grantee only)!
82:04 Westport. SD (VIII. 2-3-42)
(H.P. Jacobs and Sons) (role of EPA
Regional Administrator).
• 82:55 Haysville, KS (VII. 10-13-«2)
(Walker Process] (on-site maintenance].
82:16 El Dorado. KS (VII. 11-16-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const.) (chain vs.
cable).
Review — Regional Administrator Authorit>
(see also Procrdtirr: but si-e Sun Spotitp
1. Sanduiky. Ohm (V. 1-13-70) (B.i> -Ciui
Corp )
2. Dret-se. Illinois (V. 10-1U-7B) (Midwest
Soil Products ,iml n,ivci)-Dt;fi,iru.r) (uoli<>
diicctionj
Judicially Directed Review.
1. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authontx
Florida— Supplement (IV. 4-28-78)
(Intercounty Construction Co. and Morg.mti-
South. Inc. — Wolffs Munier. a joint \cnturc)
2. Onondaga County. New York —
Supplement (II. 9-7-78) (Pizzagalli
Construction Co. and John W. Cov\pcr Cu
Inc)
Review— Regional Administrator Au-
thority (See also Procedure; but see
Sua Sponte Review).
1. Englewood and Littleton. Colora-
do (VIII, 2-10-75) (Air Products &
Chemicals Inc.)
•2. Fresno. California (IX, 7-10-75)
(Dorfman Construction Co.)
3. Cleveland Regional Sewer Dis-
trict. (Westerly Plant) Ohio (V, 11-3-
75) (Blount Brothers; Darin and Arm-
strong)
4. Haverstraw. New York (II, 6-24-
76) (Fletcher Creamer & Son)
5. Lynn. Massachusetts (I, 10-21-76)
CV.r»t.on Bogert Assoc.)
6. Detroit, Michigan (V. 11-10-76)
•".•ro Corp.)
7. Waterford, Connecticut (I, 3-4-77)
(Loc Pump it Equipment)
•8. Dothan, Alabama (IV, 3-10-77)
(infilco Degremont)
9. York, Pennsylvania (III. 4-22-77)
(Union Carbide Corp.)
10. Atlanta, Georgia (IV. 5-11-77)
(Mayer and Associates)
11. St. Paul (Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission), Minnesota (V,
5-24-77) (Eimco-BSP Services)
12. Cynthiana. Kentucky (IV, 8-11-
77) (Lyco-ZF)
13. Jackson. Mississippi (IV. 8-19-77)
(American Cast Iron Pipe Co.)
14. Lower Salford. Pennsylvania (III.
9-8-77) (Gerngross Corp.)
15. Gumming. Georgia (IV, 9-28-77)
(Newkirk Construction Co.)
16. Cranberry Township. Pennsylva-
nia (III, 9-30-77) (Bay-Con Corp.)
Remand to Grantee
84:28 Libby. MT (Vin, 8-9-84)
(Transamerican Contractors, Inc.]
(on remand grantee given option of
awarding contract to low
responsive bidder or due to
seasonal delay and need for
additional grant funds City may
consider rejecting all bids).
22
-------
SUA SPONTE REVIEW
Sua Sponte Review
84:14 City of Texarkana. TX (VI,4-5-
84) (Eununca Ecosystems. Inc.) (sua
\sponte review denied where no
threshold level of showing abuse in
procurement).
84:26 Riverton. WY (Vffl, 7-13-84)
(Mortal Const Co.. Inc.) (appeal
filed before improper EPA official
considered because of nature of
issues raised).
84:27 Metropolitan Sewer Diflt..
Cincinnatic. OH (V. 7-16-84)
(Parkson Corp.) (restricted to
protests containing dear evidence
that competition unduly impaired)
(not available to protester upon
reauestl.
Sua Sponte Review
83:01 Spearfish. SD (Vffl. 1-11-83)
[Rickel Manufacturing Co.] (authority
to review unduly restrictive
specifications).
83:08 Hamilton, MT (VIH. 2-8-83) (4G
Plumbings'Heating,.Inc.] (where
appeal summarily dismissed EPA may
review merits to provide guidance).
83:11 LaPorte. TX (VI 2-18-83) (Jess
Lovelace Const., Co.] (where integrity
of procurement system at issue).
83:24 Oklahoma City. OK
[Reconsideration] (VI 5-23-83)
(Fiberglass Engineering Products,
Inc.) (experience clause—integrity of
procurement).
83:41 MSD. Chicago, IL (V, 8-24-83)
(Premier Electrical Const, Co.)
(strictly discretionary).
83:80" Tri-City, OR (X10-20-83)
(Donald M. Drake Co.) (EPA may
raise issue not addressed by any
party).
Sua Sponte Review
81:08 Morgantown, WV (III, 2-11-81)
(Clow Co.) (untimely protest, disguised
sole source specifications).
81:31 Gildford County Sewer
District, Ml (Vffl, 4-28-81) (Baltrusch)
Const, (unstated rejection rationale
reviewed}.
81:38 Indianapolis, IN (V, 5-27-81)
(American Digital Systems) (denied, no
fundamental principles at issue).
81:55 Centerville, IA (Vn,7-21-81)
(Grady Unlimited) (discretionary).
81:62 Cobb County. GA (IV, 8-11-81)
(American Bioreactor Corp./BAV)
(importance of prospective
procurement).
81:69 Houma, LA (VI. 8-19-81)
(Hydromatic Pump) (untimely protest
exclusionary specifications).
81:87 Cridersville, OH (V, 10-16-81)
(Miami Valley Contractors) (issues not
raised to grantee).
82:25 Perryville. MD (III 4-28-82) 0-
Vinton Schafter & Sons, Inc.) (MBE
responsiveness issues).
82:44 Memphis, TN (IV, 8-16-82)
(B.F. Goodrich Co.) (review of single
material specification).
82:52 Gwynns Falls Relief
Interceptors (III, 9-14-82) (R.J. Longo
Const.) (before grantee decision).
Sua Spooto Review
1. Cordele. GA (TV. 1-15-80) (Tuttle/White
Constructors, Inc.) (restrictive specifications).
2. Tacoma. WA (X 4-3-40) (Worthington
Pump Corporation) (bid evaluation).
3. Moorhead, MN (V. 0-9-80) (Waldor
Pump & Equipment Company) (bid evaluation
on cost and performance basis).
4. Checotah. OK (IV. 7-25-30) (Sherman
Machine and Iron Works, Inc.) (decision need
not be based on parties' arguments).
5. Toledo. OH (V. T-2S-80) (Minority Earth
Movers, Inc.) (WBE is not MBE).
6. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
OR (X 12-24-80) (Ausland Construction, Inc.)
(MBE efforts).
23
-------
SUA SPONTE REVIEW
(CONTINUED)
Sua Sponte Kaview
•1. Albuquerque. MM (VI. 2-2-79) (Kent
Nowlin Construction Co.) (initial
review by RA)
2. Atlanta. .GA (IV. 3-21-79) (Fruin-
Conlon Corp.) (grantee bidder
qualification practices)
3. Cochran, GA (VI. 9-14-79) (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Services. Ltd.)
4. Glenbard Wastewater Authority, IL
(V, 4-6-79) (USEMCO, Inc.)
5. Jefferson Parish. LA (VI. 3-28-79)
(Moore, Gardener and Associates)
(selection criteria for engineering
contract)
8. Kansas City, MO (VII. 12-20-79)
(Carney Companies)
7. Mt. Pleasant MI (V, fr-25-79)
(Collavino Brothers Construction Co.]
Sua Sponle Review (§§ 35.935-2 and
35 939(0(6)) (but see Review—Regional
Administrator Authority).
1. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI. 2-1-78)
(Environmental Equipment Corporation)
2. Cynthiana. Kentucky (IV. 2-9-78) (James
N. Gray Construction Co.)
3. Newcastle. Indiana (V. 5-18-78) (Spencer
Turbine Co.)
4. Onondaga County. New York (II. 7-11-
78) (Pentech Division of Houdailte Industries)
5. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 9-20-78)
(Passavant Corp.)
6. Grand Rapids. Michigan (V. 9-26-78)
(Infilco Oegremont)
7. Cuilderiand. New York (II. 10-3-78)
(Clevepak Corp.)
8. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners.
New jersey (II. 1O-S-78) (BSP Division of
Envirotech Corp. and Wheatley Corp.)
Sua Sponte Review (§$35.935-2 and
35.939(fX6) (see also. Review—Re-
gional Administrator Authority.
•1. Bergen County, New Jersey (II.
9-28-76) (State law. competition)
(Wm. L. Crow Construction Co.-Wolfl
& Munier Inc.—Joint Venture)
2. Norwalk. Connecticut (I. 11-18-7S)
(Regional Administrator remedy not-
withstanding protest dismissal) (Brun-
alll Construction Co.)
3. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 3-4-T7)
(continuing Regional Administrator
review notwithstanding protest dis-
missal-timeliness) (New Ikor II)
•4, Sussex, Wisconsin (V. 4-14-77)
(grantee Involvement; delegation to
agent) (Fischer is Porter)
•5, York. Pennsylvania (III. 4-22-77)
(policy/regulation review) (Union Car-
bide Corp.)
8. Parsippany-Troy Hills. New Jersey
(II. 7-8-77) (Frank Briscoe Co.)
•7. McFarland, California (IX. 9-28-
77) (grantee procurement rule)
(Lagoon Aeration Corp.)
•8. Loxahatchee River Environmen-
tal Control District. Georgia (IV, 11-3-
77) (contract dispute: reprocuremcnt)
(Guy Villa & Sons. Inc.)
9. Brick Township. New Jersey (II.
11-22-77) (bid expiration, bidder ineli-
gibility) (P. & A. Construction Co.)
•10. Bridgewater, New Jersey (II. 12-
2-77) (mootness; State law) (Lombardo
Contracting Co.)
11. Ramsey. New Jersey (II. 12-2-77)
(timeliness) (P. & A. Construction Co.)
12. Corvallis. Oregon (X. 12-6-77)
(Frank Coluccio Construction Co.)
13. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sioners. Newark. New Jersey (II. 12-
10-77) (EPA regulatory-policy review)
(BSP Division of Envirotech Corp )
24
-------
STANDING
Standing
84:02 City of Bemidji, MN (V. 1-18-84)
[Fiber-Dyne, Inc.) (supplier lacks
standing to protest his substitution
by contractor).
84:11 City of New York. NY (U. 3-5-64)
(Bristol Babcock. Inc.) (supplier has
no standing to protest improper bid
evaluation).
84:18 Town of Milford. MA (L 4-20-84)
(Euramca Ecosystems. Inc.)
(because supplier did not dispute
A/B's technical reasons for
rejecting equipment EPA relied on
A/E judgment).
84:20 City of Decorah. IA (VH 5-1-84)
(Humboldt Wedag) (supplier lacks
standing to challenge evaluation of
prequ alification submittal).
84:29 City of New York. NY (II. 8-15-
84) [Terminal Const. Corp., and
Fairfield Service Co.) (prime
contractor lacks standing to protest
grantee rejection of specific
equipment offered after contract
award) ( subcontractor may protest
City's negative responsibility
determination) (experience and
bonding requirement also at issue).
84:32 Bayshore Regional Sewerage
Authority, NJ (H. 8-30-84) [RAM
Engineering. Inc.) (subcontractor
cannot protest rejection by prime
contractors caused by their inability
to evaluate his last minute
proposals).
84:32 Bayshore Regional Sewerage
Authority. N] (Reconsideration] (II.
11-1-84) [RAMEngineering, Inc.)
(supplier has standing to protest
bonding requirements but lacks
standing here because he did not
submit bid to prime carry enough to
be considered by prime).
84:38 Town of Westborough, MA (I.
10-2-84) \Lynch, etal.)
(subcontractor lacks standing to
protest grantee's refusal to
substitute).
84:41 City of Lancaster. PA (TO. 10-16-
M) [Wyatt Const. Inc.)
(subcontractor was permitted to
protest MBE compliance of a prune
bidder).
84:44 Pepper's Ferry, VA (HI. 10-29-84)
(RDP Co.) (supplier protest of
bonding requirement dismissed as
untimely).
Standing
83:02 Columbus. OH (V, 1-12-83)
[Cobey Metro—Waste Composting
Systems, Inc.) (supplier protest
experience requirements and grantee
determination of inadequate
experience).
83:03 Columbus, OH (V, 1-12-63)
[Zimpro. Inc.) (subcontractor not
listed by prime lacks direct financial
interest).
83:08 Hamilton, MT (Vm. 2-8-83) [4G
Plumbing & Heating, Inc.) (MBE
snixxratractor offerer may protest
prime's actions).
83:16 Halstead. Hutchinson. KS (VIL 3-
9-83) [Charles E. Stevens) (protester
burden to show intent to bid).
83:18 PevyviUe, MD (III 3-21-83)
(Lyco Wastewater Equipment
Division) (RBC supplier may protest
specifications which prevented prime
from awarding it contract).
83:22 San Jose, CA (DC. 4-11-83)
[Johnson Controls, Inc.) (low bidder
affected by decision to reject all bids).
83:29 Fargo. ND (Vffl. 5-18-63) [Van
Bergen S'Markaon, Incj The Gray
Engineering Group, Inc. £•
Conservatek, Inc.) (subcontractor may
protest substitution dictated by
grantee).
83:30 St Albans. WV (ID. 5-27-83)
(Ralph B. Carter Co.) (subcontractor
may protest City rejection of its
equipment).
83:38 Sacramento, CA (IX, 6-17-83)
[Power Machine Co.) (subcontractor
protested specifications).
83:43 Toledo. OH (V. 6-29-83)
[Industrial Pump & Equipment Corp.)
(supplier alleging sole source) (Part 33
regulations).
83:51 Santa Barbara, CA (IX. 8-15-83)
[Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
Co.) (supplier protested specifications
and prime's responsiveness).
83:56 Los Angeles. CA (IX. 9-30-63)
(Bailey Controls Co.) (to protest
competitor's responsiveness bidder
must be responsive).
83:57 Sod Run. Harford County, MD
(III. 10-7-63) (CESCO, Inc.)
(equipment substitution not
protestable).
83:58 Evanstdn. WY (VIII. 10-18-83)
(WesTech Engineering. Inc.]
(equipment substitution not
protestable).
25
-------
STANDING (CONTINUED)
83:62 Wayne. NB (VII. 10-31-83)
(Envirex. Inc.} (prequalified supplier
may protest grantee directed
substitution).
83:63 Monterey. CA (IX. 11-4-83)
(Power Systems) (successful supplier
cannot protest specifications).
83:68 Tri-City, OR (X12-9-83)
(Dresser Industries, Inc.) (where
protester can meet specifications no
basis for protest).
Standing
82:06 Oceanside, CA (IX. 1-30-81)
(Bird Machine Co., Inc.) (subcontractor
cannot protest a prime's use of
nonresponsible subcontractor).
81:07 Albert Lea, MN (V. 2-3-81)
(Pennwalt Corp.) (summary disposition).
81:19 Phoenix, AZ (DC. 3-27-81)
(TGK Const and MM. Sundt Const)
(second low bidder).
81:45 San Francisco, CA (IX 10-2-
81) (Hydro Conduit Co,) (supplier/
offeror with ability to compete has
affected financial interest).
81:46 San Francisco. CA (IX. 6-15-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractor*
and Suppliers) (association representing
minority subcontractors).
81:47 Jasonville, IN (V, 8-30-81)
(Hinde Engineering) (equipment supplier
may protest restrictive application of
specifications, may not protest
specifications with which it complies).
81:49 Los Angeles County, CA (IX, 7-
1-81) (Dresser Industries) (subcontractor
lacks standing to protest competitor's
equipment compliance with
specifications).
81:58 Ashland, KY (IV, 7-27^81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (subcontractor
protesting restrictive specifications).
81:59 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X, 7-30-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const and Assoc.)
(entitlement to contract award as
responsive, responsible bidder not
required for filing protest).
81:64 Loganville. GA (TV, 8-14-61}
(Flygt Corp.] (subcontractors/suppliers
lack standing to protest equipment order
cancellation).
81:72 Albert Lea, MN (V, 2-3-81)
(Bird Machine Co.) (subcontractors may
not protest substitution by prime).
81:75 New Castle, IN (V, 9-9-81) (Joe
R. Norman Contractor) (bidder may not
challenge acceptance of performance
bond absent effect on competition).
81:77 Carrboro, NC (IV, 9-23-81)
(Clevepak Corp.) (suppliers protesting
procurement from nonresponsible
supplier).
81:92 Hallandale. FL (IV, 11-3-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services;
Interstate Pipe Maintenance; and
Polymer Chemical Corp.) (supplier
challenging single material requirement).
81:96 Tallahassee. FL (IV, 11-10-61)
(GS&L Mechanical Const and Assoc. of
Minority Contractors) (association
representing minority contractors).
82:03 Fort Wayne, IN (V, 1-25-82)
(Bates & Rogers Const) (equipment
supplier lacked standing).
82:09 Cobden, IL (V, 2-19-82) (R-J
Equipment Sales) (standing of
equipment suppliers limited).
82:29 Syracuse, NY (II, 5-18-82) (Bat-
Con, Inc.) (withholding payments to
contractor for failure to meet MBE
requirements not protestable).
82:48 Spearfish. SD (VIII, 8-19-82)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.)
(subcontractor protest of restrictive
application of specifications).
82:48 Claremont CA (IX. 8-26-82)
(Peter Gavrilis) (city employee allegedly
fired for questioning subagreement
award lacks standing).
82:49 Dumas, AR (VI, 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering) (potential subcontractor
may protest restrictive specifications).
82:51 Moline, IL (V, 9-21-62) (Walker
Process) (subcontractor/supplier lacks
standing to challenge evaluation of
prime bid responsiveness).
82:58 Russian River, CA (DC, 11-1-
82) (Dan Caputo Co., and Wagner
Const, A Joint Venture) (terminated
contractor not bidding on corrective .
work contract lacks standing).
82:60 Rochester Pure Waters District,
NY (II, 11-3-82) (Schiavone Const. Co./
Cotton Dean Underground Excavation
Co., Joint Venture) ("public interest"
provides no standing).
82:63 Elk Pinch, WV (HI, 11-18-82)
(Kappe Assoc.) (subcontractor lacks
standing to protest nondiscriminatory '
performance bond requirement).
82:64 Shady Spring PSD, WV (HL 11-
22-82) (Davis Water & Waste Industries,
Inc.) (subcontractor substitution not
protestable).
82:71 Columbus, OH (V, 12-29-62)
(Zimpro) (adversely affected direct
financial interest).
82:72 Alliance. OH (V. 9-10-62) (R&S
Engineering) (no standing where
subcontractor failed to attempt
prequalification).
26
-------
STANDING
(CONTINUED)
Standing
1. East Bay Discharger* Authority. CA (DC
1-30-80) (Capital Control* Company)
(supplier).
2. Tacoma. WA (X. 4-3-80) (Wocthington
Pump Corporation) (supplier alleging sole
source).
3. Cordele. GA (IV, 5-1-60) (Franklin
Aluminum Division/Hoover Universal Inc.)
(supplier alleging restrictive specifications).
4. Moorhead. MN (V. 6-3-flO) (Waldor
Pump & Equipment Company) (supplier's
standing can be recognized by RA).
Standing
1. Batesville. AR (VL1-12-79) (Hinde
Engineering Co.)
2. Clarksburg. MA (L 8-25-79) (Curran
Associates Inc.)
3. Concord, NH (L10-4-79) (Bethlehem
Steel Corp.]
4. Conneaut, OH (V. 7-18-79) (Hoff-
Weston) .
*5. Decatur, AL (IV, 3-2-79) (Johnson
Controls, Inc.)
6. Decatur, AL (IV, 7-23-79)
(International Electric Co.)
7. Oe Kalb Sanitary District. EL (V. 2-15-
79) (Autotrol Corp.) (equipment
supplier)
8. Gainesville. GA (TV, 8-15-79)
(National Hydro Systems, (nj).(by or
for grantee)
9. Hagerstown. MD (IE 1-4-79) (Pd
Ozone Corp.) (suppliers direct
financial interest)
10. Laurens County, SC (IV. 7-10-79)
(Caroline Concrete Pipe Co.. et al.)
11. Macon-Bibb County Water and
Sewage Authority, GA (TV. 3-18-79)
(Shirco, Inc.) equipment suppliers
protesting responsiveness of prime
bidder)
12. Meriden, CT (L 10-4-79) (Carter
Construction Co.) (MBE)
13. Seaford, DE (m. 1-8-79) (National
Hydro Systems, Inc.)
14. SoUlwater, OK (VL 3-1-79) (Robicon
Corp.)
*15.Sterling, IL (V, 3-9-79} (Neptune
CPC Engineering Corp.)
1. Sandusky. Ohio (V. 1-13-78] (Bay-Con
Corporation) (protest must be decided by
jjrdntee before filing with EPA)
2. Springfield. Missouri (VII. 1-24-78)
[Armco Steel Corp.) (equipment supplier)
3. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI. 2-1-78)
(Environmental Equipment Corporation)
(limited at subtler levels)
4 Turlock. California (IX. 3-6-78) (Riga.
Inc ) (subtler, intervenors)
5. Wells. Maine (I. 3-17-78) (Purcell Pump)
(subtler)
6. Effmgham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78) (Autotrol)
7. Anligo. Wisconsin (V. 3-24-78) (General
Killer Co.) (supplier challenging
responsiveness of prime bid)
8. Newcastle. Indiana (V. 5-18-78) (Spencer
Turbine Co.) (equipment supplier)
'9. Contra Costa County Sanitation District
\o 15. California—Reconsideration (IX. 7-
1-J-THI (Cldddms-McBean Inc. and Pacific
Cl.ty IVoducts Co.) (intervenors)
10. Lebanon. Pennsylvania (III. 8-28-78) (B.
K Goodrich General Products) (subtler
protest)
11. Knoxville. Tennessee (IV. 9-25-78) (R.
B Carter) (subcontractor challenge to pnmn
Lull
12. Brii-sc. Illinois (V. 10-18-781 (Midwest
Soil Products and Davco-Defiance)
13. Frankfort. Kentucky (IV. 10-18-78)
(Passavant) (subcontractor protest limitation
of § 35.939(j)(6))
14. West Goshen. Pennsylvania (III. 11-1-
78) (Electric Machine Mfg. Co.) (subtler)
15. Lake County. Illinois (V. 11-17-78)
(F.nvirex)
16. Delaware County. Ohio (V. 11-21-78)
|R. B Carter)
Standing.
1. Westchester County, New York
(I!. 3-3-76) (trr.de association) (Gener-
al Buildini; Contractors)
2. Baton Rouge. Louisiana (VI. 11-5-
76) (National Hydro Systems, Inc.)
3. Bridgeport. Connecticut (I, 11-22-
76) (interested parties-associations)
(Connecticut Engineers in Private
Practice)
4. Rhode Island Statewide Planning
Program (§ 208 grant) (I. 3-4-77) (non-
offeror to RFP) (C. E. Maguire, Inc.)
•5. York. Pennsylvania (III. 4-22-77)
(subcontractor protest of prime award
issue) (Union Carbide Corp.)
6. Montgomery, Alabama (IV, 5-11-
77) (subcontractor - non - restrictive
specifications) (Envirotech Corp.)
7. Daytona Beach. Florida (IV. 6-21-
77) (subcontractor protest of prime
award; accord York, Pa.) (Hydro-Clear
Corp.)
•8. Norwalk. Connecticut (I. 7-22-77)
(no valid bid due to price increase on
bid extension) (Primiano Construction
Co.)
9. McFarland, California (IX. 9-29-
77) (subcontractor protest of engineer-
ing evaluation; vs. grantee involve-
ment rule) (Lagoon Aeration Corp.)
10. Contra Costa County. California
(IX, 10-25-77) (Armco Steel)
11. Loxahatchee River Environmen-
tal Control District. Georgia (IV, 11-3-
77) (contract disputes; reprocuremenu
(Guy Villa & Sons)
12. Brick Township, New Jersey (II,
11-22-77) (P. & A. Construction Inc.)
13. Monterey Peninsula Water Pollu-
tion Control Agency, California (IX.
12-9-77) (J. M. Bush)
14. Passaic Valley Sewerage Cormr.:
sioners, Newark, New Jersey (II. 12
10-77) (Restrictive Specifications—Ex-
perience) (BSP Division of EnvirotecM
Corp.)
27
-------
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Summary Disposition
84:22 Mercer County. NW (IL 5-7-84)
(RDP Co.] (untimely appeal).
84:24 City of Leominister. MA (L 6-11-
84) (P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc.)
(untimely appeal).
84:29 City of New York. NY (H 8-15-
84) (Terminal Const. Corp., and
FairfieldService Co.] (failure to
exhaust administrative remedy and
lack of merit).
84:33 Muncie, IN (V, 8-30-84)
(Shambaugh & Son, Inc.) (failure to
submit anything after initial
telegraphic notice).
84:37 Lewistown, MT (VII. 9-27-84)
(Process Equipment Co.) (failure to
file initial protest).
84:52 Possum Valley. PA (HI. 11-8-84)
{U-Max Engineering Sr Const. Corp.)
(failure to file initial protest).
84:55 City of Fort Laaderdale. PL (TV,
12-27-84) (Gray Engineering Group,
//id) (request for reconsideration).
Summary Disposition
81:07 Albert Lea, MN (V. 2-3-61)
(Pennwalt Corp.) (untimely, no
standing).
81:41 Grand Haven, MI (V, 6-5-81)
(Equipment & Gravel] (work beyond
scope of project). *
81:63 Honolulu, HI (DC, 8-12-81)
(Nichols Engineering & Research Co.)
(frivolous).
81:100 Harriman, TN (IV, 12-9-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services)
(failure to file written protest after
telegram).
81:104 Elizabethtown, KY (TV. 12-18-
81) (Autorol Corp.) (protest used to
preserve restrictive specification for
protestor's benefit).
82:03 Fort Wayne. IN (V, 1-25-82)
(Bates & Rogers Const.) (appeal
procedurally defective).
82:39 Russian River, CA (IX, 7-20-
82) (Dan Caputo, Co. and Wagner Co., A
Joint Venture) (contractor claim).
82:51 Moline, IL (V, 9-21-82) (Walker
Process) (supplier lacks standing to
challenge bid evaluation/
responsiveness).
82:57 Cape May County MUA, N] (II,
11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Co. and
Fairfield Service Co.) (protest not
frivolous where basic project design not
clear from IFB).
82:71 Columbus, OH (V. 12-29-82)
(Zimpro) (no adversely affected
financial interest).
1. AMM AruodeJ County, MD(DL 1-13-WI
(Sabatini Company) (mam or piMiiaUai«
protest).
2. Pima County. AZ (DC Z-20-80) (Ameron)
(change order).
3. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago, IL (V. 2-27-80) (Shea-Wewtt) (tait
prica claim).
4. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicafo. n. (V. $-27-40) (HerEhy Mid-
Conbent Company) (contract claim).
5. Hudson County Utilities Authority. ffl (a
J-31-80) (EaJlEnjifleeri Limited) (uatimelyi
a. Moorhaad. MN (V. *-J-*>| (Waldor
Pump & Equip/nun! Company) (lengthy
iubmittals preclude dismissal).
7. Cecil County. MD (QL t-11-60) (Hanks
Contractta* lac) (uattoely. lack of bid
bond).
8. Whitewater. WI (V. 9-22-90] (Ntsjb-
9. Linden Roaatte Seweraf* Aatkortty, N)
(IL 10-31-60) (Euramca Boocyvtaram, tee.)
(untimely).
10. Qear Lake City, TX(Vl tZ-2B-«B)
-------
SUMMARY DISPOSITION (CONTINUED,
14. Meriden. CT (1.10-4-79) (Carter
Construction Co.)
15. Miami-Oade Water and Sewer
Authority. FL (IV, 4-30-79) (Cobo
Construction Co.)
16. Mill Hall. PA (III. 1-29-79)
(Municipal and Industrial Pipe
Services. LTD.)
17. Plainfield. CT (112-11-79)
(Greetunan's Trucking. Inc.)
18. Frederick County, MD (EL 4-19-79)
(Conewago Contractors, Inc.)
19. Greenup County, KY (IV, 11-13-79)
(W. Rogers Co.)
20. Rocky Mount. NC (IV, 1-15-79)
(Enviro Development Co.)
21. City and County of San Francisco,
CA (IX 12-20-79) (Chemcon. Inc)
22. Simpsonville. KY (TV, 4-17-79)
(Warner A. Brougnman in and
Associates)
23. Stillwater. OK (VL 3-1-79) (Robicon
Corp.)
24. Wood County Parks and Recreation
Commission. WV (HI, 3-15-79) (GAL
Construction, Inc.)
25. Worchester County (Ocean City),
MD (IH 3-14-79) (Charles E. Brohawn
and Brothers. Inc. (II))
Summary Disposition (§ 35.939(kj).
1. Mountaintop. Pennsylvania (III. 1-5-78)
(National Hydro Systems. Inc.)
2. Glenwood Springs. Colorado (Vlll. 1-13-
78) (Colorado Environmental Equipment, Inc.)
(procedures: timeliness)
3. Sandusky. Ohio (V. 11-3-78) (Bay-Con
Corporation) (timeliness)
4. Glen Ellyn. Illinois (V. 4-7-78) (Lyco-Zf)
(timeliness)
5. Atwater. California (IX. 4-26-78)
(Warren C. T. Wong & Assoc.) (A/E
procurement)
6. Olympia. Washington (X. 5-30-78)
(Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries.
Inc.)
•7. Bay City. Michigan (V. 6-28-78)
(Greenfield Construction Co.) (contract 10 D)
(timeliness)
8. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority.
Florida (IV. 7-13-78) (Ed. L Nezelek Inc.)
("without merit")
9. Goose Creek. South Carolina (IV. 7-24-
78) (Kenney and Associates) (timeliness)
10. Pepperell. Massachusetts (I. 7-28-78)
(Wescor Associates. Inc.) (timeliness)
11. Bay County. Michigan (V. 8-11-78)
(Frank V. Louis Equipment Co.)
12. Perms Grove. New [rrsrv (11. 8-24-7H)
jPiinduIlo Quirk Assou
-------
SUMMARY DISPOSITION (CONTINUED)
•13. Sacramento, California (IX. 9-
13-76) (timeliness—restrictive specifi-
cation challenge) (Amoco Reinforced
Plastics)
• 14. Deposit, New York (II. 10-5-76)
timeliness—challenged reprocurement
upon default of contractor) (Albin
Construction Co.)
15. Boynton Beach/Delr.ay Beach.
Florida (IV. 10-14-76) (timeliness—
subtler) (Ecological Services Products)
16. Concord. North Carolina (IV. 10-
14-76) (timeliness—subtler) (Air Prod-
ucts & Chemicals Inc.)
17. Baton Rouga Louisiana (IV, 11-
5-76) (business judgment) (National
Hydro Systems)
18. Detroit. Michigan (V, 11-10-76)
(timeliness—subtler) (Lotcpro Corp.)
19. Occoquan-Woodbndne (Potomac
Plant), Virginia (III. 11-12-76)
-------
TIME LIMITATIONS
Time Limitations
84:14 City of Texarkana. TX (VL 4-5-
84) (Euramca Ecosystem* Inc.)
(appeal dismissed a* untimely).
84:18 Town of Milford. MA (14-20-64)
(Euramca Ecosystems, Inc.] (protest
dismissed because received one day
late. Copy received by A/E did not
constitute grantee receipt).
84:10 Clinton County, NY (IL 4-90-84)
(Compost Systems Co.)
(specifications restrictive on their
face must be protested before bid
opening).
84:22 Mercer County, NW (U. 5-7-84)
(RDPCo.) (appeal received on
eighth day dismissed as untimely).
84:25 City of Revere, MA (1.6-13-84)
(Polymer Chemicals, Inc.) (appeal
received on eleventh day is
untimely).
84:28 Riverton. WY (VIII, 7-13-84)
(Martel Const, Co., Inc.) (protest
appeal alleging impropriety in
solicitation dismissed when not
filed before bid opening).
84:27 Metropolitan Sewer DisL,
Cincinnati. OH (V, 7-16-64)
(Parkson Corp.) (dismissal where
protest of restrictive specifications
filed after bid opening).
84:31 Trumbull County. OH (V. »-24-
84) (R SrK Constructors, Inc.)
(dismissed appeal filed 10 days
after receipt of granted decision).
84:33 Muncie, IN (V, 8-30-65)
(Shambaugh &Son. Inc.) (failure to
submit anything after initial
telegraphic notice).
84:34 Glens Falls, NY (H. 8-30-64)
(Dorr-Oliver. Inc.) (dismissed
appeal received 11 days after
receipt of grantee decision).
84:37 Lewistown. MT (Vffl, 9-27-84)
(Process Equipment Co.) (must
protest prequalification rejection
prior to bid opening).
84:39 Town if Thompson WTF
Kiamesha Lake Sewer Dist. (II, 10-
18-84) (Ultraviolet Purification
System Inc.) (dismissed appeal
receive 11 days after receipt of
grantee decision).
84:41 City of Lancaster, PA (III. 10-16-
84) (Wyatt Const. Inc.) (initial
protest filed untimely).
84:44 Pepper's Ferry, VA (in. 10-29-84)
(RDPCo.) (must protest'
specifications containing alleged
unduly restrictive experience and
bonding requirements before bid
opening).
84:48 Indianapolis, IN (V. 11-7-64)
(Becbtel Const. Corp.) (protest of
specification that required contract
clause inconsistent with EPA model
clause dismissed because protest
was after bid was rejected).
84:49 Richgrove. CA (IX, 11-3-84) (El
Camino Const. Co.) (dismissed
appeal filed with State agency and
not received by EPA until 18 days
after receipt of grantee decision).
84:51 City of New York, NY (IL 11-8-
84) (Williams & Lane Energy
Systems Corp.) (dismissed where
mailgram not supplemented within
7 days).
Tuna Limitation*
83:01 Spearfish, SD (Vffl, 1-11-83)
(Rickei Manufacturing Co.) (mailed
appeal must be received within one
week).
83:02 Columbus, OH (V, 1-12-83)
(Cobey Metro—Waste Composting
Systems, Inc.) (documents must be
promptly filed following mailgram
notice and*protest).
83:08 Hamilton. MT (VIII, 2-8-83) (4G
Plumbing & Heating, Inc.)
(communications between protestor
and EPA do not excuse untimely filing
of appeal).
83:22 San lose, CA (IX. 4-11-83)
(Johnson Controls. Inc.) (clock not
started by engineer's communication
to bidder concerning adequacy of
equipment).
83:25 Onondaga County. NY (IL 5-9-
83) (Herbert F. Darling, Inc.) (appeal
of post bid determination of good faith
MBE efforts ripe when award
announced).
83:28 Oes Moines, WA (X. 5-18-83)
(Will Const, Co., Inc.) (protester's
burden of proving timeliness).
83:31 Youngstown, OH (V, 5-31-83)
(Floyd Brown Associates) (must
challenge evaluation criteria before
submitting proposal).
31
-------
TIME LIMITATIONS (CONTINUED)
83:38 Sacramento, CA (IX, 8-17-83)
(Power Machine Co.) (protest after bid
opening where specification not
clearly restrictive on its face)
(rejection of equipment started clock).
83:39 Philadelphia, PA (ffl. 8-22-83)
(Fisher * Porter Co.) (good faith
negotiations delayed dock).
83:40 Elkhart. IN (V, 8-22-83) (Penn
Equipment & Tool Corp.) (strictly
construed 1 week).
83:43 Toledo. OH (V, 8-29-83)
(Industrial Pump & Equipment Corp.]
(sole source must be protested before
bid opening).
83:50 Detroit Ml (V, 8-2-83) (Dynamic
Const., Co., Inc.) (timely where no
knowledge of grantee intent to award
to competitor).
83:51 Santa Barbara, CA (IX. 8-15-83)
(Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
Co.) (7 days to protest restrictive
specifications) (nonresponsive bid
must be protested within 1 week of
learning of award) (oral notice of City
Council meeting starts appeal clock).
83:54 Dorchester, MD (111, 9-20-83)
(F.E. Meyers Co.) (specifications must
be protested prior to bid opening).
83:55 Brazos River. TX (VL 9-23-83)
[feffery Manufacturing Div.) (where
protester reasonably believed
equipment met 'specifications protest
may be filed after bid opening).
83:58 Evanston. WY (Vffl. 10-18-83)
(WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
(protester risks late delivery of
express mail protest appeal).
83:60 Tri-City, OR (X. 10-20-83)
(Donald M. Drake Co.) (telegraphic
notice received after close of business
deemed timely).
83:63 Monterey, CA (IX11-4-83)
(Power Systems) (protest of
specifications).
Time Limitations
81:01 N.Y. State DEC. NY (II. 1-7-81)
(Sweda Enterprises) (7 days-from IFB).
81:08 Morgantown. VW (HI, 2-11-81)
(Clow Co.) (protest 10 days after receipt
of IFB] (sua sponte review granted).
81:09 Wilmington. DE (IIL 2-12-81)
(Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley) (knowledge
of restrictive specification requires
protest before bid opening).
81:23 Tifton, TA (IV, £l3-81) (Astor
Bolden Enterprises, Inc. and Municipal I
Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.) (protest tc
be within week of factual event giving
notice of basis).
81:25 Hopkinsville. KY (IV, 4-14-81)
(Price, Inc. and Neal Inc., Joint Venture)
(protest within week of constructive
knowledge).
81:33 Lynchburg. OH (V. 4-30-81)
(Dow Const.) (clock starts on bid
evaluation issue when access to bid
content allowed).
81:34 San Diego, CA (IX. 5-1-61)
(Westates Carbon) (time limits protect
public interest).
81:36 Buncombe County, NC (IV, 5-
7-81) (Carlon. Division of Indian Head)
(advance knowledge of restrictive
specifications before bid opening made
protest late).
81:38 Indianapolis, IN (V. 5-27-81)
(American Digital Systems) (clock starts
on procurement method issue on receipt
of IFB).
81:40 Memphis, TN (IV, 6-2-81)
(American Digital Systems) (where RFP
not in conformity with request for
qualifications must protest week after
proposal meeting).
81:44 Tuolumme County, CA (IX. 6-
11-81) (Chaudhury & Assoc.. Inc.)
(protest 6 days late, appeal 1 day late).
81:46 San Francisco, CA (IX. 6-15-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractors
and Suppliers) (5 days late).
81:47 Jasonville. IN (V. 6-30-81)
(Hydro Conduit] (each issue's timeliness
considered separately).
81:49 Los Angeles County, CA (IX, 7-
1-81) (Dresser Industries) (timely filed
three months post bid opening).
81:54 Monmouth County. NJ (II. 7-
21-81) (Fellows. Read & Assoc.) (for
protesting short proposal preparation
period).
81:55 Centerville, IA (VII. 7-21-81)
(Grady Unlimited) (understandable but
inexcusable delay).
81:57 Newaygo County Board of
Public Works, MI (V, 7-24-81] (D.J.
Domas] (one day late).
81:58 Ashland. KY (IV, 7-27-81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (notice to
prime that supplier's equipment rejected
does not start dock on supplier) ( failure
to notify interested parties does not
affect dismissal).
81:62 Cobb County, GA (IV, 8-11-81)
(American Bi ore act or Corp./BAC) (sua
sponte review after time for protest
-------
TIME LIMITATIONS
appeal) (one week means seven
consecutive calendar days).
81:84 LoganviUe. GA (IV. 8-14-61)
(Flygt Corp.) (Supplier's protest due
week after letter advising equipment
would not be used). '
81:69 Houraa. LA (VL 8-19-81)
(Hydromatic Pump) (untimely appeal.
k sua sponte review of exclusionary
' specifications).
81.-70 Tuscaloosa, AL (TV, 8-20-81)
(Naylor Supply Co.) (receipt of
determination by law firm, not
individual attorney, starts dock).
81:80 Sacramento County, CA (DC,
10-2-81) (Westates Carbon Co.)
(restrictive specification protest filed •
after bid opening).
81:81 Columbus. OH (V. 10-5-81)
(Cantwell Machinery) (receipt by
counsel is receipt by protestor).
81:88 Huntsville, AL (TV. 10-5-81)
(Municipal, & Industrial Pipe Services
and Astor Bolden Enterprises) (unduly
restrictive specification exception to
time limitation).
81:88 Fort Wayne. IN (V, 10-16-81)
(Bates and Rogers Const.) (53 days late).
81:94 Oneida County Sewer District.
NY (D. 11-4-61) (C.O. Falter Const.)
(grantee letter interpreting specifications
starts clock).
81:95 Fowlerville. MI (V, 11-8-81)
(Nonnco Const) (verbal notice does not
start appeal clock).
81:96 Tallahassee. FL (IV. 11-10-61)
(GS&L Mechanical Const.; Assoc. of
Minority Contractors) (timely protest
after termination of post bid-opening
negotiations).
81:99 South Seminole and North
Orange County. FL (IV, 11-20-81)
(DeZurik Valve Manufacturing (where
bidder knew specifications were
ambiguous, protest must be filed prior to
bid opening).
81:104 Elizabethtown. KY (IV, 12-18-
81) Autorol Corp.) (one week means
seven days).
81:105 South Seminole and North
Orange County Wastewater
Transmission Authority. FL (IV, 12-22-
81) (Terra Video) (seven days to protest
to grantee).
81:107 Colchester. CT (L 12-31-81)
(Clark Sewer Const) (dock begins on
responsiveness issue at bid opening).
82:03 Fort Wayne. IN (V, 1-25-62)
(Bates * Rogers Const.) (knew or should
have know test for timeliness).
82:05 Wawarsing. NY (IL 2-8-82) (A.
Ceston Co.) (time not tolled by further
discussions).
82.-07 Chattanooga. TN (IV, 2-18-82)
(Spencer Turbine Co.) (protestor should
have known specification restrictive
before bid opening).
82:09 Cobden. IL (V. 2-19-82) (R-J
Equipment Sales) (one week time
limitation).
82:10 SaugetIL(V, 2-19-82) (GHA
Lock Joint) (protest of specifications
after bid opening).
82:12 Channelview, TX (VL 3-8-82)
(Euramca Ecosystems) (interlocutory
grantee decision resolved initial protest
but created grounds for second protest).
82:19 Mt Pleasant. SC (IV, 3-31-82)
(Bird Machine Co.) (letter denying
prequalification starts clock).
82:25 Perryville. MD (IIL 4-28-82) (J-
Vinton Schafer & Sons) (constructive
knowledge) (sua sponte review granted).
82:26 Akron. OH (V. 5-3-62)
(Environmental Elements) (grantee
dismissal as untimely).
8227 Eveleth. MN (V. 5-3-82)
(Gridor Const) (knew or should have
known).
82:31 Menominee, MI (V. 6-8-82)
(Krygoski Const.) (knew pr should have
known).
82:39 Russian River, CA (DC, 7-20-
82) (Dan Caputo Co. and Wagner Co., A
Joint Venture) (supplemental protest
raising new issues).
82:43 Brockton. MA (1,8-16-82) •
(Tenco Hydro) (grantee has burden of
demonstrating untimeliness).
82:44 Memphis. TN (TV, 8-16-82)
(B.F. Goodrich Co.) (protest late) (sua
sponte review granted).
82:46 Spearfish. SD (Vm, 8-19-62)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.)
(restrictive application starts clock).
82:47 Bedford Heights. OH (V. 8-20-
82) (Suburban Power Piping, et a/.)
(knew or should have known).
82:54 Palm Beach. FL (IV. 10-7-82)
(Polymer Chemical Co.).
82*0 Rochester Pure Waters District
NY (II. ll-3-82>(Schiavone Const. Co./
Cotton Dean Underground Excavation
Co.. Joint Venture) (clear manifestation
starts clock].
33
-------
TIME LIMITATIONS
82:64 Shady Spring PSD, WV (HI. 11-
22-82) (Davis Water & Waste Industries)
(where negotiation letters and requests
for clarification, grantee reply needed
before protestable).
82:88 Atwood. OH (V, 12-1-82)
(Munitech] (waiver of deviation from
specifications) (appeal filed with EPA 5
days late).
1. Cordele, GA (IV. 1-15-*)) (Tuttbt/WUta
Constructors Inc.) (written notice to supplier
of rejection).
2. Fall River. MA (L 2-13-80) (Pasnvut
Corporation) (delay aggravated by grantee
and EPA).
3. Hudson County Utilities Authority. N] (0.
3-31-80) (EAR Engineer* Limited) (one week
to protest and to appeal).
4. Tacoma. WA (X 4-3-40) (Worthington
Pump Corporation) (oral notice of rejection).
5. Little Rock. AR (VT. 4-29-40) (Autotrol
Corporation) (before bid opening).
6. Rochester, MN (V. 7-24-80) (Darin ft
Armstrong. Ino: Krau*-Anderson/PMW
Construction: Newberg, Foster ft Paschem;
Premier Electric Construction) (notice).
7. Toledo. OH (V. 7-28-80) (Minority Earth
Movers. Inc.) (seeking clarification before
Cling protest).
8. Rockford. MI (V, 8-1-80) (Nagle
Construction. Inc.: Interstate Pipe
Maintenance, Inc.: Qytus Industries. Inc.)
(RA refusal to waive one week appeal limit).
9. Cecil County, MD. (IE. 8-11-80) (Hanks
Contracting. Inc.) (one week to appeal to RA).
10. Marquette County. MI (V. 8-14-80)
(Brumm Construction Company; O'Dovero
Construction Company) (prompt action on
actual knowledge).
11. Whitewater. WI (V. 0-22-80) (Nage-
Hart, Inc.) (59 days after bid opening).
12. Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority, N)
ID. 10-31-80) (Euramca Ecosystems. Inc.)
(appeal one month after grantee
determination).
13. Dorchester County Sanitary
Commission. MD (IIL 11-5-80) (Andrews.
Miller and Associates. Inc.) (9 days after
grantee determination).
14. Newaygo County Board of Public
Works. MI (V. 11-7-80) (D. J. Domas. Inc.)
(failure to file detailed statement).
15. Bear. Creek Valley Sanitary Authority,
OR (X. 12-24-80) (Ausland Construction, Inc.)
(8 days after bid opening).
Time Limitations
1. Atlanta, GA (IV, 3-21-79) (Fruin-
Conlon Corp.)
2. Chattanooga. TN (IV, 3-27-79)
(Performance Systems, Inc.)
3. Concord. NH (L 10-4-79) (Bethlehem
Steel Corp.)
4. Danville. KY (IV. 10-26-79) (Andrew
Enterprises, Inc.)
*5. Decatur. AL (IV, 3-2-79) (Johnson
Controls, Inc.)
6. De Kalb Sanitary District. IL (V, 2-15-
79) (Autotrol Corp.)
7. Detroit MI (V, 12-11-79) (Pollutech.
Inc. and Glenn E. Wash Associates, A
Joint Venture)
8. Howard County, MD (TO, 2-15-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.)
9. Kansas City. MO (VII. 12-20-79)
(Gamey Companies, Inc.) (exception
to specifications)
10. Laurens County, SC (IV, 7-10-79)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co., et al.)
(pipe specifications)
11. Meridan. MS (IV. 1-15-79)
(Mississippi Pump and Equipment Co..
. Inc.)
12. Meriden, CT (I, lO-i-79) (Carter
Construction Co.]
13. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, IL (V. 8-18-79)
(Troesch Trucking Inc.)
14. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority, FL (IV, 4-30-79) (Cobo Co.,
Inc.)
15. Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, NJ ( n, 4-18-79)
(Passavant Corp.)
18. Plainfield. CT (1,12-11-79)
(Greenman's Trucking, Inc.)
17. Rocky Mount, NC (IV. 1-15-79)
(Enviro Development Co.)
18. City and County of San Francisco,
CA (DC, 12-20-79) (Chemcon, Inc.)
19. Simpsonville. KY (IV, 4-17-79)
(Warner A. Broughman m and
Associates)
20. Stillwater, OK (VI, 3-1-79) (Robicon,
Corp.)
21. Worchester County (Ocean City),
MD (m. 3-14-79) (Charles E. Brohawn
and Brothers, Inc.
34
-------
TIME LIMITATIONS
Time Limitations (§§ 35.939(b). (f)l
1. Clenwood Springs. Colorado (VI11. 1-13-
78) (Colorado Environmental Equipment Inc )
2. Sandusky, Ohio (V. 1-13-78) (Bay-Con
Corporation)
3. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI, 2-1-78)
(Environmental Equipment Corp.)
4. Cynthiana. Kentucky (IV, 2-9-78) (lames
N. Gray Construction Co.) (Post Office delay:
risk of nondelivery)
5. Chicago (Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago). Illinois (V. 3-12-78)
(Howard Martin Construction)
6. Wells. Maine (1. 3-17-78) (Purcell Pump)
7. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78) (Autotrol)
8. San Francisco. California (IX. 3-22-78) (E
& I. Inc.)
9. Glen Ellyn. Illinois (V. 4-7-78) (Lyco-Zf)
(post-contract award)
"10. Mt. Olive. North Carolina (IV, 5-18-78)
(Lyco-Zf) (prequalification)
11. Newcastle. Indiana (V. 5-18-78)
(Spencer Turbine Co.)
12. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 5-19-78)
(Mulholland Construction Co.)
13. Bay City. Michigan (V, 6-28-78)
(Greenfield Construction Co.) (Contract No.
10 D)
14. Urbana-Champaign. Illinois (V, 6-30-78)
(Paddock Refimte]
15. Washtenaw County, Michigan (V, 7-13-
78) (Spence Bros.)
16. Goose Creek. South Carolina (IV. 7-24-
78) (Kenney and Associates)
17. Pepperell, Massachusetts (I. 7-28-78)
(Wescor Associates, Inc.)
18. Washington County. Oregon (X. 7-31-
78) (North American Contractors Inc.)
19. Bay County. Michigan (V, 8-11-78)
(Frank V. Louis Equipment Co.) (Contract No.
D
20. Penns Grove. New Jersey (It 8-24-78)
(Pandullo Quirk Association)
21. Oklahoma City. Oklahoma (VI. 8-25-78)
(Automatic Engineering Inc.) (subcontract
•ward]
22. Lebanon. Pennsylvania (III. 8-28-78) (B.
F. Goodrich General Products) (change order
as notice event)
23. Bay County. Michigan (V. 9-1-78)
(Roese Contracting Co. Inc.) (Contract Nos. 3
and 7)
24. Hintdale. New Hampshire (1. 9-1-78)
(Enviro Development Co. Inc.)
•25. Bay County. Michigan (V. 9-12-78)
(Roese Contracting Co. Inc.) (Contract No. 1-
D)
28. Grand Rapid*. Michigan (V. 9-28-78)
(Infilco Dcgremont) (method of delivery:
bearing risk telegram)
27. Guilderland. New York (IL 10-3-78)
(Clevepak Corp.)
*28. Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners. New Jersey (II. 10-5-78) (BSP
Division of Envirotech Corp, and Wheatley
Corp.) (estoppel)
29. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-6-78) (FMC
Corp.)
30. Silver City. New Mexico (VL 10-13-78)
Enviro Development Co. Inc.)
31. Breese. Illinois (V. 10-18-78) (Midwest
Soil Products and Davco-Definance)
32. Frankfort Kentucky (IV. 10-20-78)
(Stewart Mechanical Enter./Sigmamotor Inc.)
(subtier level protest)
*33. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-31-78)
(Allis-Chalmers) (linkage to proceeding
contracts: estoppel) (see Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners, New Jersey (II. 10-
5-78) (BSP Division of Envirotech corp. and
Wheatley Corp.))
34. Urbana-Champaign. Illinois (V. 11-0-78)
(Norton Co.)
35. Lake County. Illinois (V. 11-17-78)
(Envirex) *
36. Delaware County. Ohio (V. 11-21-78)
(R. B. Carter)
rime Limitations (§ 35.939(b)).
1. Denver. (City) Colorado (VHX, 4-
22-74) (waiver, reversed by new regula-
tions) (Pinkard Donovan)
2. Hudson. Wyoming (VIXX, 8-1-74)
(Environmental Equipment)
3. Omaha, Nebraska (VTJ, 9-14-74)
(Datamaster Dlv.—ACCO)
4. Henry. South Dakota (VXXX. 9-15-
75) (Henningsen)
5. Oregon. Ohio (V. 11-6-75) (timeli-
ness as jurisdlctional) (Ohio Control
Systems)
6. Sunnyvale, California'(IX, 12-5-
75) (oral protest—revised by new regu-
lations) (ABP Contractors)
7. Butler County (LeSourdesville
Plant). Ohio (V, 1-7-78) (restrictive
specifications—subtier—grantee final-
ity rule) (EPCO—Hormel)
•8. Spokane. Washington (X. 1-9-76)
(restrictive specifications—grantee fi-
nality rule) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
9. Palmer Lake. Colorado (VIII, 1-
16-76) (grantee finality rule) (Dugan
Construction Co.)
=-_ 10. Predonia, New York OX. 4-15-76)
(Tenco Hydro-Aerosciences)
Ul. Denver (City and County). Colo-
rado (VIII, 7-9-76) (Frank Briscoe)
12. Hancock, Michigan (V. 7-12-76)
(grantee decision to use negotiated
procurement) (Maclean Construction
Co.)
35
-------
TIME LIMITATIONS
•13. Sacramento, California (IX, 9-9-
76) (restrictive specifications—or
equal—grantee's finality) (Air Prod-
ucts te Chemicals Inc.)
'14. Sacramento. California (IX, 9-
13-76) (restrictive specifications—or
equal—grantee's finality) (Amoco Re-
inforced Plastics)
•IS. North Shore Sanitary District.
Illinois (V. 9-28-76) (restrictive specifi-
cations—rejection of equipment-
grantee finality rule) (Keene Corp.;
Premier Electric Co.)
^ 16. Deposit. New York; OX. 10-5-76)
(Albin Construction Co.)
•17. Boynton Beach/Delray Beach.
Florida (IV, 10-14-76) (oral protest)
(Ecological Services Products)
•18. Concord. North Carolina (IV.
10-14-76) (subtler—timely oral request
but untimely written) (Air Products &
Chemical Inc.)
19. Lynn. Massachusetts (I. 10-21-
76) (A/E procurement; grantee finality
rule) (Clinton Bogcrt Associates)
20. Baton Rouge. Louisiana (VI. 11-
5-76) (restrictive specifications—sub-
tier) (National Hydro Systems)
21. Detroit. Michigan (V. 11-10-76)
(estoppel—bidder on second procure-
ment to challenge rejection of all bids
on first) (Lotepro Corp.)
22. Cleveland Regional Sewer Dis-
trict (Southerly Plant), Ohio (V, 11-
15-76) (restrictive specifications)
(Powercon Corp.)
23. Norwalk, Connecticut (I. 11-16-
75) (letter to State) (Burnalli Con-
struction Co.)
•24. Waterford, Connecticut (I, 12-
28-76) (restrictive specifications—or
equal; finality rule) (New Ikor I)
25. Fredonia, New York (II. 2-28-77)
(restrictive specifications—subtler-
equipment acceptability determina-
tion) (National Hydro Systems)
•26. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 3-4-
77) (restrictive specifications—or
equal) (New Ikor II)
•27. Dothan, Alabama (IV. 3-10-77)
(restrictive specifications—or equal-
grantee reversed) (Infilco Degremont)
28. Sioux City. Iowa (VII. 3-17-77)
(restrictive specifications—rejection of
shop drawings necessary) (Ralph
Carter Co.; U.S. Enviro-Con)
29. Puerto Rico Aqueduct
-------
37
-------
38
-------
39
-------
40
-------
Subject Index
PROCUREMENT
SUBSTANTIVE
PROCUREMENT
MATTERS
-41-
-------
42
-------
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER
PROCUREMENT
A/E Procurement
83:04 Globe, AZ (IX1-25-83) (Brown *
Caldwell] (prior EPA approval
required).
83:04 Globe, AZ [Reconsideration] (DC.
4-11-83) (Brown & Caldwell] (prices
and identities of proposers publicly
disclosed).
A/E Procurement
81:17 McHenry County. 1L (V, 3-16-81)
(Pio Lombardo & Assoc.) (evaluation
criteria).
81:39 GuamPUA(lX. 5-29-81) (John
Carollo Engineers—George Chen &
Sons) (failure to list evaluation criteria
and procedures).
A/E Pi
1. Northwest Bergen County Sewer
Authority. NJ (IL1-10-60) (URS/MSR
Engineers, Inc.) (oral interview, cost
submission).
2. Hudson County Utilities Authority, NJ (0.
3-31-80) (E&R Engineers Limited) (time to
protest).
3. San Antonio, TX (VI7-15-60) (Camp
Dresser and McKee. Inc.) (terminate
negotiations with initial selectee).
4. Vista Sanitation District/Encina Joint
Powers. CA (DC 7-30-60) (Don Todd
Associates) (cost in evaluation).
5. Vista Sanitation District/Encina Joint
Powers, CA (DC. »-19-60) (Don Todd
Associates) (reconsideration, reevaluate
proposals).
& Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council (Fort Myers], FL (IV, 12-3-80) (Jones,
Edmunds and Assodates/Misaimer ft
Associates) (evaluation).
A/E procurement .
1. Clarksburg,' MA (I, 8-25-79) (Curran
Associates, Inc.)
2. Conneaut, OH (V, 7-18-79) (Hoff-
Western)
3. Jefferson Parish, LA (VI. 3-28-79)
(Moore, Gardner and Associates)
4. Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board, PR (n, 3-30-79) (Technologists
Internationa], Inc.)
5. Monterey County, CA (DC. 2-26-79)
(Monterey Construction Surveys, Inc.)
6. Simpsonville, KY (IV, 4-17-79)
(Warner A. Brougham HI and . -
Associates)
7. West County^ Agency, CA (DC, ft-28-
79) (R. D. Smith)
8. Muskegon County. MI (V, 7-29-79)
(Video Media Corp.)
Architect/Engineering Procurement
(§ 35.937).
'1. Knoxville, Tennessee (IV. 2-8-78) (Roy
F Wuslon Inc.) (grantee rerankmg of
technical committee evaluation of proposals)
'2. East Bay dischargers Authority.
California (IX. 2-15-78) (R.D. Smith)
(subagreements: minority business
enterprise)
3. Atwaler. California (IX. 4-26-78)
(Warren C.T. Wong & Assoc.) (price
competition)
4 Pcnns Grove. Ni-w )erse\ (II. ft-24-78|
(I'.indullo Quirk Assoc.) (evn of
proposal:))
Architect/Engineering Procurement
(535.937).
1. Bridgewater. New Jersey (II, 3-31-
76) (Havens and Emerson. Ltd.)
2. Berkeley - Charleston - Dorches-
ter, South Carolina (IV. 7-19-76) (§ 208
grant) (Davis
-------
AWARD-PRIME CONTRACT
Award-Prime Contract
83:59 Puerto Rico. PR (H, 10-18-63)
(Longo—Puerto Rico. Inc.] (no right to
public contract).
Award—Prime Contract
81:63 Honolulu. HI (IX. 8-12-«l)
(Nichols Engineering & Research)
(equipment procurement by subcontract
instead of separate direct prime
contracts).
82.14 Atlanta. GA (IV. 3-15-42)
(Ruby-Collins and John D. Stephens) (no
award to reconstituted joint venture
vMth sub-entities differer'. from bidder).
Award—Prime Contract
*1. Albuquerque, MM (VI, 2-2-79) (Kent
Nowlin Construction Co.) (single
bidder)
Award-Prime Contract
-------
BIDS
Alternative
Bids
A. Alternate
""•)
84:07 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago, IL (V, 2-8-84) (A./.
Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind., Inc., and
Klein Const. Co.) (unsolicited
responsive alternate bid must be
accepted where bidder is bound
upon its acceptance).
84:09 City of Los Cruches. MM (VI, 2-
27-S4) (Mass Transfer, Inc.)
(alternative requiring substantial
redesign of project is
nonresponsive).
84:17 Fresno County, CA (IX 4-20-84)
(Valley Engineers, Inc. and
McGuire 6" Hester) (IFB forbade
bidders having an interest in more
than one bid for same work—
protester filed one bid as individual
and one as part of joint venture).
84:35 Portage Sanitary Bd., Portage, IN
(V, 9-31-64} (Cariup Const. Con.
Inc.) (unsolicited voluntary
alternate does not affect
responsiveness of bid).
C Alternative
83:10 Needles. CA (IX. 2-1O-83)
(Hefley Bros., Corp.) (principal bid not
rendered nonresponsive by
nonresponsiveness of alternate bid)
(must be rational performance basis
for grantee switching selected
alternative).
83:3fr Bentonville, AR (VI, 6-14-63)
(Archer Henry Const., Co.) (choice
between equal alternatives based on
cost).
3. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
Authority. MI (V. 7-2-60) (Amado Cardenas.
d/b/a Nashville Excavating Company) (MBE
efforts prior to bidding).
4. Newaygo County Board of Public Works,
MI (V, 7-21-80) (M. D. Taddie & Company.
Inc.) (discount applied to single contract).
5. Rochester. MN (V, 7-24-80) (Darin &
Armstrong, Inc.; Kraus-Anderson/PMW
Construction: Newberg, Foster & Paschem
Premier Electric Corporation) (MBE effort
prior to bidding),
6. Newaygo County Board of Pubic Works.
Ml (V, 7-28-80) (R. S. Bennett & Company)
(prequalifled equipment to comply with
specifications).
7. Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board, UT (Vra. 11-20-80) (Western Utility
Contractors. Inc.) (difference between unit
price and extended total).
Ambiguity
•1. Cochran, GA (TV, 9-14-79)
(Municipal and Industrial Pipe
Services, Ltd.y
2. ML Pleasant, MI (V, 6-25-79)
(Collavino Brothers Construction Co.)
Deduct Items
D, Deduct items
83:08 Western Carolina, SC (IV, 2-2-
83) (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley)
(grantee review of low bidder's deduct
equipment).
83:15 Union City. OH (V, 3-6*83) (Mote
Const, Co.) (deduct cannot be
considered unlesa all bidden had
opportunity to offer deduct).
83:36 Bentonville. AR (VL 8-14-83)
(Archer Henry Const., Co.) (deductive
alternates used where grantee knows
material changes in scope of services
may occur).
83:47 Topeka. KS (VII, 7-21-83)
{Walters-Morgan, Inc.) (where bids on
two separate projects opened same
• day combined bid deduction offered
by bidder is unacceptable).
Alternate
82:59 Rochester Pure Waters District,
NY (II, 11-3-82) (Schiavone Const./
Cotton Dean Underground Excavation
Co., Joint Venture) (award to low bidder
on highest cost alternate).
Ambiguity
Ambiguity
1. San Buenaventura, CA (DC, 3-28-80) (A.
A Portanova & Sons) (difference; between
unit price and extended total).
2. Glennville, GA (IV, 4-4-80) (J. W. '
Meadors and Company) (unsolicited
discount).
Evaluation
C. Evaluation
84:03 Town of Williston, VT (1,1-25-
84) (Cooely Corp.) (reasonableness
of responsive bid evaluated using
.non-responsive bids).
84:12 Town of Grantsville, MD (III, 3-
20-84) (Mattingly Const., Inc.)
(cannot ignore price limitation
established by specification but not
.. contained in IFB).
-45-
-------
BIDS
Evaluation (CONTINUED)
84:15 Mattabassett Dist. Regional
Sewer Auth., Cromwell, CT (1,4-12-
84) (Peabody N.E., Inc.) (energy
consumption figures provided in bid
do not justify grantee inferring that
bidder selected a specific supplier)
(material ambiguities required
cancelling solicitation).
84:17 Fresno County, CA (K, 4-20-84)
(Valley Engineers, Inc. and
McGuire & Hester) (grantee could
consider bid on combined work of
collection system and treatment
plant as severable bids on separate
parts) (cannot accept bid from
bidder who contrary to IFB had'an
interest in more than one bid).
84:18 Town of Milford, MA (I, 4^20-84)
[Euramca Escosystems, Inc.)
(because supplier did not dispute
A/E's equipment evaluation, EPA
relied on A/E judgment).
84:20 City of Decorah, IA (VII, 5-1-64)
(Humboldt Wedag) (supplier lacks
standing to protest engineer's
evaluation of prequalification
submittal).
84:21 Ardmore, OK (VI, 5-4-84) (LYCO
and Walker Process Corp.) (must
not enforce specifications
selectively on different bidders).
84:17 City of Leonminister; MA (I, 6-
11-84) (R. Gioioso & Sons, Inc.)
(nonresponsive bids may be used in
evaluating reasonableness of the
only responsive bid).
84:34 Glens Falls, NY (II, 8-30-84)
(Dorr-Oliver, Inc.) (communications
between grantee and bidder after .
bid opening relating to
responsibility are permissible).
84:38 Austin, TX (VI, 9-6-84) (Olson
Const., Inc.) (base bid evaluation
with adjustments for equipment
Substitutions).
84:40 City of Lancaster, PA (III, 10-1&-
84) (Parkson Corp.) (engineer had
rational performance reasons for
rejecting equipment offered).
Bid Evaluation
83:04 Globe, AZ [Reconsideration] (IX.
4-11-83) (Brown & Caldwell] (must
clearly state method and criteria).
83:08 Western Carolina, SC
[Reconsideration] (IV, 5-6-83)
(Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley) (no right to
contract but right to be fairly judged
under performance specifications).
83:11 LaPorte. TX (VI, 2-18-83) (/«w
Lovelace CosnL, Co.) (estimated
quantities of work must be
reasonable) (award of unit price
contract may not be based on total
prices on alternative means of
performance).
83:21 Chester, CT (1, 4-7-83) (Maple
Hill Coast. Co.) (deference to exercise
of discretion by public official).
83:24 Oklahoma City, OK
[Reconsideration] (VL 5-23-83)
(Fiberglass Engineered Products. Inc. I
(ambiguous experience clause
requirement).
83:27 Port Arthur, TX (V. 5-12-63)
(RobertBotsovr, Inc.) (IFB unclear as
to tew alternative and deduction to be
evalauted—harmless error).
83:30 St. AlbaiM. WV (TO. 5-27-83)
(Ralph B. Carter Co,) (must be dearly
stated method).
83:38 Bentonvilie. AR (VI. 8-14-83)
(Archer Henry Coast, Co.)
(ambiguous IFB description harmless
error if no reliance by bidder).
83:46 Casper, WY (Vm. 7-6-63)
(Sbawaee Const. Inc.) (must award
based on stated criteria).
83:48 Heber Spring, AR (VI. 8-2-63)
(Trigon Engineering Co.] (operation
ftmfr mjfrir^afl^nfl^ COStS, COSt-
effectiveness considered).
83:51 Santa Barbara. CA (IX 8-15-831
(Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
Co.) (failure to follow evaluation
criteria by waiving specifications).
83:80 Tri-City. OR (X, 10-20-83)
(DonaldM. Drake Co.) (bid evaluated
on component item amounts not
summary total).
Bid Evaluation
81:31 Gildford County. MI (VIE, 4-
28-81) (Baltrusch Const.) (separate bid
schedules erroneously combined to
determine low bidder).
82:66 Smyrna, TN (IV, 11-29-82)
(Charles Finch Co. and Waterman
Industries) (bid rejection must be based
on performance not just physical
differences).
82:67 Cullman. AL (TV, 11-30-62)
(Cal Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew and
Assoc.) ("performance" refers to
minimum needs, not best facilities but
adequate ones).
-46-
-------
BIDS
Evaluation (CONTINUED)
Evaluation of Bid*
81:02 Little Blue Valley. MO (VTL 1-
8-81) (Eby Const) (evaluation factors
not in IFB).
81:17 McHenry County Board EL (V.
3-16-81) (Pio Lombardo ft Assoc.) (A/E
evaluation to be based on performance
criteria not local preference).
81:39 Guam PDA (DC. 5-29-61) Qohn
Carollo Engineers—George Chen &
Sons) (failure to list evaluation criteria
and procedures).
81:62 Cobb County. GA (TV. 8-11-81}
(American Bioreactor Corp./BAV)
(single base method of evaluation
prohibited).
82:47 Bedford Heights. OH (V. 8-20-
82] (Suburban Power Piping, et aJ.)
(subcontractor listing errors not basis
for rejection unless IFB clear).
82:59 Rochester Pure Water District
NY (n. 11-3-82) (Schiavone Const./
Cotton Dean Underground Excavation
Co.. Joint Venture) (award to low bidder
on highest cost alternate).
Evaluation of Bids
1. Mount Holly Sewerage Authority. N] (II.
2-8-80) (Neshaminy Constructors. Inc.)
(deletion of alternate item).
2. Tacoma, WA (X. 4-3-80) (Worthington
Pump Corporation) (acceptance of equipment
of different tize).
3. Soldotna, AK (X 4-25-80) (Interstate
Company) (MBE documents as to positive
efforts).
4. Stanford. CT (L 5-28-80) (C H.
Nickerson ft Co.) (zero unit price, identical
price for alternates).
5. Moorhead, MN (V. 0-3-80) fWaldor
Pump & Equipment Company) (cost and
performance basis). t
6. Newaygo County Board of Public Works.
MI (V. 7-Z1-80) (M. D. Taddie * Company.
Inc.) (discount).
7. Newaygo County Board of Public Works,
MI (V, 7-28-80) (R. S. Bennett ft Company)
(equipment efficiency and operating costs).
Evaluation of Bida
1. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
OH (V. 8-14-79) (Water Pollution
Control Corp.)
2. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
OH (V, 9-18-79) (Passavant Corp.)
3. Cleveland Regional Sewer District.
OH—Reconsideration (V, 10-18-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.) (Per
Norton Co.)
4. Cleveland Regional Sewer District,
OH—Clarification (V. 12-28-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.) (O
and M Costs)
5. Cochran. GA (TV, 9-14-79) (Municipal
ft Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
6. Hannibal. MO (VTI. 6-7-79) (U.S.
Enviro-Con. Inc.) (equipment listing)
7. Mt Pleasant MI (V, 6-25-79)
(Collavino Brothers Construction Co.)
8. Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, N] (H 4-13-79)
(Passavant Corp.) (adequate basis for
evaluation provided in IFB)
9. Portage, MI (V. 12-31-79] (Tom
Robinson ft Son. Inc.)
10. West County Agency, CA (DC, 6-28-
79) (R. D. Smith)
11. Wood County Parks and Recreation
Commission. WV (ffl. 3-15-79) (GAL
Construction, Inc. (tied contracts)
Evaluation of Bids (but see Responsibility:
Responsiveness; Formal Advertising:
Negotiation: Mistake: Rejection of All Bids:
A ward Prime Contracts).
\. New York City. New York (II. 1-12-78)
(Schiavone Construction Co.) (mistake:
bidder intent test)
2. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI. 2-1-78)
(Environmental Equipment Corp.) (subtier
selection by grantee: price)
3. Kitsap County. Washington (X. 2-3-78)
(Will Construction Co.. Inc.) (equipment
listing—matter of responsibility)
4. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-6-78) (Mautz &
Oren. Inc.)
'5. Chicago (Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago) Illinois (V. 3-12-78)
(Howard Martin Construction) (waiver under
local procedures)
6. Fairfax County. Virginia (111. 3-17-78)
(John W. Cowper Co.. Inc.) (subcontractor
listing)
7. Snyderville. Utah (VIII. 4-17-78)
(Jacobsen Construction Co. Inc.) (base
bidding)
8. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority.
Florida (IV. S-18-78) (Enviro Development
Co. and Poole & Kent Co ) (equipment listing)
9 Newcastle. Indian* (V. 5-18-78) (Spencer
Turbine Co ) (fundamental federal
procurement principles)
10. Onondaga County. New York (II, 6-30-
78) (Zimpro. Inc.) (offering competitor's
system, patent infringement allegation)
11 Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Aulhiinty. Florida (IV. 7-13-78) (Ed. L.
Nozulek Inc ] (prime's listing of previous!;,
unaccepted equipment)
12 Wdshtonaw County. Michigan (V. 7-13-
~H| (Spence Bros ) (implementing the
specification by Ms terms; award to low
tiidiii-r)
13 Washington County. Oregon (X. 7-31-
78) (North American Contractors Inc.) (base
bidding, use of multiple schedule)
-47-
-------
BIDS
Evaluation (CONTINUED)
14. San Francisco. California (IX, 8-9-78)
(Sldttery Assoc.. Fischbach and Moore Inc.
and Mornson-Knudsen Co Inc.. joint venture)
(minonly business enterprise-local
requirements)
15. Southern Clinton County. Michigan (V.
6-11-78) (A. Z. Shmina) (subcontractor
listing)
16. Bay County. Michigan (V. 9-12-78)
(Roese Contracting Co Inc.) (Contract No. 1-
D)
17. Grand Rapids. Michigan (Vw9-26-78)
llnfilco Degremonl) (life-cycle cost
acceptdblel
18. Guilderland. New York (II. 10-3-78)
(Clrvt'pdk Corp ) (brfse bidding)
19 Bruese. Illinois (V. 10-18-78) (Midwest
Soil Products dnd D
-------
BIDS
Irregularities
D. Irregularities
84:07 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago, IL (V, 2-6-84) (A./.
Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind., Inc., and
Klein Const. Co.] (minor
irregularities must be waived).
Late
E. Late
84:57 Neenah-Menasha Sewerage
Commission (V, 12-31-84) (Flour
Bros. Const. Co.) (time for
submitting bids may not be
extended after deadline has passed)
(failure to submit bid on time may
not be waived by grantee).
(A) Late:
1. Rawlins. Wyoming (VIII, 11-16-
77) (Wind River Constructors Inc.)
1. Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board, PR 01. 3-30-79) (Technologists
International, Inc.)
Mistake
F. Mistake
84:26 Riverton, WY (VIII, 7-13-84)
(Martel Construction Co., Inc.)
(where numerical bid differed from
words, grantee properly permitted
correction to intended bid without
regard to reconciliation clause) (bid
remained lo.w even after correction).
84:28 Riverton, WY [Reconsideration]
(VIII, 7-13-84) (Martei Construction
Co., Inc.) (because there was no bid
displacement, information outside
the bid could be considered).
84:27 Metropolitan Sewer Dist.,
Cincinnati, OH (V, 7-18-84)
(Parkson Corp.) (extension price
listed in unit price space causes
ambiguity in bid price requires
rejection rather than correction).
84:30 County of Erie, NY (II, 8-16-84)
(Amadori Const. Co.] (words over
numerals reconciliation clause
cannot be applied to conflict with
bidders clear intent).
84:43 Chippewa Township, PA (III, 10-
24-84) (Modany Bros., Inc.) (where
bid contained discrepancy in lump
sum and unit price and bidder
requested his bid be withdrawn or
that he be awarded the contract at
the higher amount, the bid was
nonresponsive due to ambiguity).
84:56 City of Fort Lauderdale, FL (IV,
12-27-84) (Gray Engineering Group,
Inc.] (where difference between unit
lump sum price and bidder
acknowledges he intended the
higher lump sum amount he cannot
elect to take the contract at the
lower mistaken a'mount).
Mistake
83:10 Needles, CA (IX, 2-10-03)
(Hefley Bros.. Corp.} (where bidder
alleges mistake he cannot waive right
to have bid rejected unless absent
mistake he would be low bidder).
33:36 Bentonville, AR (VI. 6-14-63)
(Archer Henry Const., Co.) (correction
of math error displacing another
bidder) (bidder cannot compel upward
correction of competitor's bid).
83:45 Casper. WY (VIIL 7-3-83)
(Shawnee Const, Inc.) (not
necessarily require finding bid
nonresponsive, bidder must be given
chance to verify apparent mistake).
83:60 Tri-City. OR (X 10-20-83)
(Donald M. Drake Co.) (where
mistake not claimed reconciliation
clause waived].
Mistake
81:05 Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
Sewer Authority. PR (IL 1-29-81)
(Redondo Const.) (withdrawal of
mistaken bid not protestable).
81:48 Cleveland, MS (IV. 7-1-81)
(Roland Pugh Const) (corrected bid
displaced bidder, intent ascertainable
from bid).
81:67 Wanaque Sewerage Authority,
NJ (II. 8-19-81) (A. Cestone Co.)
(corrected unit price bid displaced low
bidder).
82:30 Panorama Village, TX (VL 5-
21-82] (Ranger Const.) (unit price
extensions may be corrected if intent
clear from face of bid).
Mistake
1. San Buenaventura, CA (DC. 3-28-60) (A.
A. Portanova ft Son*) (unit price corrected).
2. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
District CA (DC 5-0-40) (Buidlck
Contractors, Inc.) (State law).
3. Marqnette County. MI (V. 8-14-40)
(Bnunm Construction Company; OTDorero
Construction Company) (change order to
cover bid mistake).
4. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
OH (V. 9-t-W) (D. E. Williams Electric, me)
(upward adjustment relief as State law issue).
5. Ashley Valley Sewer Management
Board. UT (VUL 11-20-40) (Western Utility
Contractors. lac.) (unit price corrected).
-49-
-------
BIDS
Mistake (CONTINUED)
MisUk*
1. Jackson, CA (DC. 7-5-79) (Joseph R.
Ramos Pipeline Engineering]
(mathematical errors)
*2. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago. IL (V. 10-11-79)
(Morrison-Knudson-Paschen)
*3. Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside, CA
(DC. 7-23-79; errata 9-21-79)) (Radco
Construction, Inc.)
4. Newton. IA (Vn, 12-6-79) (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
Mistake.
1. Denver (City), Colorado (VIII, 4-
22-74) (Plnkard Donovan)
2. Omaha. Nebraska (VII, 9-14-74)
(offensive use) (Datamaster Div.—
ACCO)
3. Davenport, Iowa (VII. 4-11-75)
(Lametti & Sons)
4. Fresno, California (IX, 7-10-75)
(Dorfman Construction Co.)
5. Clark County (Las Vegas), Sani-
tary District (No. 1). Nevada (IX. 12-
24-75) (Bovee & Crail Construction
Co.)
6. Bergen County, New Jersey (II. 9-
28-76) (Wm. L. Crow-Wolff & Munier.
Joint Venture)
7. Bradford, Vermont (I. 3-4-77)
(Cummings)
8. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer
Authority (II, 3-31-77) (Blythe Indus-
tries Inc.)
•9. Middlesex (Bound Brook Pump
Station), New Jersey (II. 6-3-77) (Cam-
penella Construction Co.)
10. Middlesex (Sayreville Relief
Pump Station). New Jersey (II. 6-9-77)
(Terminal Construction Co.)
11. Corvallis. Oregon (X. 12-6-77)
(Prank Coluccio Construction Co.)
Negotiated Procurement (§535.936-18
and 35.937-5).
•1. Spokane, Washington (X, 1-9-76)
(BBR Prestressed Tanks)
2. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester,
South Carolina (IV, 7-19-76) (§208
grant) (Davis & Floyd Engineers, Inc.)
3. Rhode Island Statewide Planning
Program (I, 4-26-77) (§208 grant) (C.
E. McGuire Inc.)
4. Bradford, Vermont (I, 6-6-77)
(Carvel Co.)
MODIFICATION
A Modification
1 Momnouth. OR (X, 8-21-80) (Chinook
Pacific Corporation) (limiting time to accept
bid).
l. Hardstown, KY (IV, 1-3-79) (E. H.
Hughes Co.) (I)
2. Detroit, MI (V, 12-11-79) (Polutech,
Inc. and Glenn E. Wash Associates, A
Joint Venture'
3. East Bay Dischargers Authority, CA
(DC, 11-16-79) (Brantley Instruments)
(Contra Costa Electric, Inc.)
*4. Kansas City. MO (VII. 12-20-79)
(Carney Companies] (exception to
method of tunnelling)
(B) Modification:
1. Gainesville-Alachua County * • •
Board, Florida (IV. 7-10-75) (Grum-
man Ecosystems)
2. Monroe, Washington (X, 12-31-75)
(Will Construction Co.)
3. Concord, North Carolina (IV. 10-
8-76) (Mercury Construction Corp.)
4. Gary, Indiana (V, 10-19-76) (Pora
Construction Co.; and the Robinson
Group, Inc.)
5. Lynden, Washington (X, 5-16-77)
(oral) (Arcomm Construction Co.)
Qualified
G. Qualified
84:07 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago, IL (V, 2-6-84) (A./.
Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind.. and Klein
Const. Co.) (bid calling itself
"voluntary alternate if acceptable"
is not qualified or ambiguous).
F. Qualified
83:46 Palatine. IL (V, 7-19-83) (Di
Paolo-Rossetti, Joint Venture) (offer to
deduct amount if given two separate
contracts is a conditional bid).
83:51 Santa Barbara, CA (DC, 8-15-83)
(Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
Co,) (warranty provisions).
Qualified
81:22 Corvallis, OR (X. 4-10-81)
(Environmental Pollution Control, Inc.)
(bid reserved right to substitute
equipment).
Seal
H. Seal
84:28 Libby, MT (VHI. 8-9-64)
[Transamerican Contractor. Inc.)
(defects, seal and attestation relate
to authority of agent which may be
established after bid opening).
Severable
1. Severable
84:17 Fresno County, CA (IX. 4-20-84)
(ValleyEngineers, Inc. and
' McGuire 8" Hester) (bid on
combined collection system/
treatment plant Severable into bids
on separate parts).
-50-
-------
BIDS
Signature
]. Signature
84:28 Libby, MT (Vffl, 8-9-84)
(Transamerican Contractors, Inc.)
(defects in signature, seal and
attestation relate to authority of
agent which may be established
after bid opening).
Unbalanced
G. Unbalanced
83:86 Boston. MA (1,12-9-63)'
(Schiavone Const., Co.) (penny
bidding not per se unbalanced and
nonresponsive).
Unbalanced
81:53 Timmonsville. SC (IV, 7-17-81)
(Quality Sanitary Services) (not
automatically nonresponsive—depends
•whether award will result in lowest
cost).
C. Unbalanced
% Glennville. GA (TV, 4-t-flO) (J. W.
Meadors and Company) (not automatically
rejected).
r Branford. CT (L 5-28-«0) (C H.
Nlcfcerson & Co.) (zero unit price deduct).
(C) Unbalanced:
1. Omaha, Nebraska (VII. 9-14-74)
(Datamaster Division—ACCO)
•2. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(Northeast Plant) (III. 12-6-76) (Sov-
ereign Construction Co.)
3. Bridgewater, New Jersey (II, 12-:: •
77) (Lombardo Contracting Co.)
•4. Ramsey. New Jersey (II, 12-'J-77'
(P. &t A. Construction Co.)
BID SHOPPING
Bid Shopping
83:13 Sandpoint, ID (X 3-3-83) (Lydig
Const.. Co.) (subcontractor listing as
material term).
Bid Shopping
81:20 Tupelo. MS (TV, 4-7-81) (Jesco.
Inc.) (ambiguous equipment listing
requirement).
82:02 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (HI. 1-22-82) (R&M Assoc.) (listing
prequalified subcontractors was not to
prevent bid shopmna) (reversed 81:83).
82:16 Ottawa County. OH (V. 3-16-
82) (Munitech) (substantial deviation).
82:21 Fallbrook Sanitary District, CA
(IX, 4-6-82) (Metro-Young/Lopez Const.,
A Joint Venture) (controlling state
statute).
82:23 Passaic Valley. NJ (U. 4-20-82)
(Rochester Pump and Machine, Inc.) (not
limited by EPA).
Bid Shopping
1. Hastings. ME (VH. 3-7-80) (Morton
Construction Company, Olson Contraction
Company) (failure to list MBE subs).
2. lohnson County. KS (VH. 4-l-*H (Sharp
Brothers Contracting Company) (failm to Us*
MBE subs).
3. Tacoma. WA (X 4-3-80) (Worthmfton
Pump Corporation) (equipment substitution).
4. Glennville. GA (IV, 4-4-60) (J- W.
Meadors and Company) (Failure to Hst
suppliers).
5. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
Authority. MI (V. 7-2-80) (Amado Cardenas,
db.a. Nashville Excavating Company)
(failure to list MBE subs).
ft. County of Nassau. NY (U. 8-7-80)
(Komline-Sandenon Engineering
Corporation) (substitution for listed
eqoipment).
7. San Jacinto River Authority
(Woodlands], TX (VL10-3-30) (Industrial
Contractors, Inc.] (listing of MBE subs).
S. DuPage County (Department of Public
Works). IL (V, 12-15-80) (Paschen
Contractors. Inc.) (failure to list subs).
9. Pierce County. WA (X12-23-*)) (Frank
Comedo Construction Company) (failure to
list subs).
Bid Shopping
1. Caldwell. ID (X 11-1-79) (Neilson S
Co.) (subcontractor listing)
2. Hannibal, MO (VII. 6-7-79) (U.S.
Enviro-Con, Inc.) (subcontractor
listing)
3. Mt. Pleasant, MI (V, 6-25-79)
(Collavino Brothers Consfruction Co.)
Bid Shopping (The Administrator, on June 29.
1978. submitted a report to congress entitled.
Waste Water Treatment Contracting and Bid
Shopping which concluded that among other
things. EPA would not impose a procurement
standard upon grantees with the effect of
preventing bid shopping, see 40 C.F.R.
5 35.938-4(h)(6). as amended by 43 FR 44080.
September 27. 1978).
•1. Fairfax County. Virginia (III. 3-17-78)
(John W. Cowper Co. Inc.) (failure of low
bidder to name preapproved supplier)
-51-
-------
BID SHOPPING (CONTINUED)
Bid Shopping.
•I. Hollywood, Florida (IV, 3-13-74)
(Morganti-South Inc.)
2. Jacksonville, Florida (IV, 8-12-74)
(Adrian Construction Corp.)
3. Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission. Maryland (III. 10-15-75)
(Volpe Construction Co.; and John C.
Grimberg Co.)
4. Winter Haven. Florida (IV, 11-26-
75) (Griffin Construction Co.)
•5. Miami-Bade Water and Sewer
Authority. Florida (IV, 3-11-76)
(George Hyman Construction Co.)
*6. Upper Occoquan Sewer Authori-
ty (Manassas Park), Virginia (III, 6-
24-76) (Savoy Construction Co.)
7. Amherst. New York (II, 7-2-76)
(Air Products & Chemicals Inc.)
8. York. Pennsylvania (III. 4-22-77)
(Union Carbide Corp.)
•9. St. Paul (Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission), Minnesota (V,
5-3-77) (Palco; and Kraus-Anderson)
BIDDERS
Bidden
33:06 Western Carolina. SC (IV. 2-2-
83) (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley) (where
specification* required supplier to
submit equipment for review through
prime contractor grantee may refuse
to review equipment directly offered).
Bidders
82:14 Atlanta. GA (TV, 3-15-82)
(Ruby-Collins and John D. Stephens) (no
award to reconstituted joint venture
with sub-entities different from bidder).
BONDS
Bonds
83:02 Columbus, OH (V. 1-12-83)
(Cobey Metro—Waste Compositing
Systems. Inc.} (5 year bond not unduly
restrictive if available at
nonburdensome cost).
83:03 Columbus. OH [Reconsideration)
(V, 6-6-83) (Cobey Metro—Waste
Composting System. Inc.] (review of
numerous EPA decisions concerning
bonds) fmust Drove rational basis for
bond requirement it protestor shows
effect on competition) (5 year bond
requirement deemed reasonable).
83:41 MDS, Chicago, IL (V, 6-24-83)
(Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
(summary dismissal of protest where
bid bond not extended).
Bonds
84:03 Town of Williston. VT (1,1-25-
84) (Cooley Corp.) (failure to include
bid bond with bid is nonresponsive)
(bid bond with no stated penal sum
is nonresponsive).
84:08 City of Toronto. OH (TV. 2-2-84)
(J.L. Cavanaugh Co.. Inc.]
(subcontractor's warranty may be
furnished post-bid opening absent
subcontractor listing requirement).
84:16 Back River Waste Water
Treatment Plant, MD (ID. 4-17-84)
(fames A. FedeHine, Inc.. H.A.
Harris Co.) (bid guarantee not
furnished with bid in proper form
and amount renders bid
nonresponsive).
84:19 Clinton County. NY (IL 4-30-84)
(Compost Systems Co.) (requiring
performance guarantee for
liquidated damages in amount of
bid price is not undue restriction on
competition).
84:32 Bayshore Regional Sewerage
Authority, N] (0. 8-30-84) (RAM
Engineering, Inc.) (five year
performance bond in lieu of five
year experience is not unduly
restrictive where such bond is
available at reasonable price).
82:44 Pepper's Ferry. VA (III. 10-29-64)
(RDP Co.) (subcontractor protest of
bonding requirement dismissed as
untimely).
Bonds
81:49 Los Angeles County. CA (IX. 7-
1-81) (Dresser Industries) (performance
bond demonstrates responsibility)
81:56 New Castle. IN (V. 7-22-fl!)
(Ralph Reed and Sons) (single vs.
incremental performance bonds).
81:87 Cridersville. OH (V, 10-16-811
(Miami Valley Contractors) (no appeal
bond required to protest).
82:02 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority.
PA (III. 1-22-82) (R&M Assoc.)
(submission of bond in lieu of
experience) (reversed 81:83).
82:13 Philadelphia. PA (III. 3-16-82]
(Willard. Inc.) (two bonds if bid on
separate contracts, one if bid covers
both) (performance bond guaranteeing
lowest energy costs).
82:43 Brockton. MA (I. 8-16-82)
(Tenco Hydro) (experience bond must
be accepted in lieu of specified
experience) (bond language generally
unacceptable to sureties unduly restricts
competition).
-52-
-------
BONDS
'(continued)
82:57 Cape May County MUA. NJ (II.
11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Corp.
and Fairfield Service Co.) (bond not
acceptable alternative in lieu of
construction meeting specifications).* -.
82:63 Elk Pinch. WV (III. 11-18-82)
(Kappe Assoc.) (nondiscriminatory
performance bond requirement, standing
of subcontractor).
1. Norwich. CT (I Z-l-SO] (Fantonl
Company) (bid bond not signed by principal).
2. Cecil County. MD (OL 8-11-80) (Hanks
Contracting. Inc.) (bid bond not submitted).
S. Pierce County. WA (X12-23-80) (Frank
Cohiccio Construction Company) (bid bond
as a percentage of bid).
Bonds (§§ 35.935-3 and 35.936-13
(bid bond) (Harry Pepper & A •>
ciates)
4. Bradford. Vermont (I. 6 6 77,
(Carvel Co.)
5. dimming. Georgia (IV, 9-23-77)
(performance bond) (Newkirk Co:.-
struction Co.)
6. Kansas City. Kansas (VII. 11-17-
77) (experience bond) (Nichols E:i_:-
neering and Research Corp.; aiv.l
Zimpro, Inc.)
•7. Passaic Valley Sewerage Convr-!-,-
sioners. Newark. New Jersey (II. 12-
10-77) (experience bond) (BSP DIM-
sion of Envirotech Corp.)
Bonds (§§ 35.936-13(c) and 35.936-22).
1. West Bend. Wisconsin (V. 3-3-78)
(Oliver Construction Co. Inc.) (bid—goes to
responsiveness)
•2. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78)
(Auiolrol) (performance: combined 200%
bond requirement)
'3. San Francisco. California (IX. 3-22-7H|
(E 4 I. Inc.) (experience)
4 Front Royal. Virginia (111. 4-21-78) (Lyro-
Zfi (prequalificationl
5. S.in Francisco California (IX. 8-17-781 |K
S 1. Inc.) (performance)
"6 Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners. New jersey (II. 10-5-78) (BSP
DivisionT>f Enurotech Corp . and Wheatlev
Corp.") (warranty and performance bond—
ambiguity: operation and maintenance costs|
[Note.—The first determination in this matter
was issued 12-10-77 and was affirmed in
CCnVf'M v. U.S. EPA. 452 F.Supp. 69 (D.N I
1978||.
7. Silver City. New Mexico (VI. 10-13-78)
(Enviro Development Co. Inc.) (experience!
8. Concord. North Carolina (IV. 10-24-78)
(EDC/Enviro Development Inc.) (5 year-
justification)
'9. Chattanooga Tennessee (IV. 11-2-78)
(Philadelphia Gear) (5 year period: cost)
10. Riianna Water and Sewer Authority
Charlottesville. Virginia (111. 11-2-78)
(National Hydro Systems)
Bonds
•1. De Kalb Sanitary Pistrict IL (V, 2-
15-79) (Autotrol Corp.) (performance
bond)
2. Hannibal, MO (VH, 6-7-79) (U. S.
Enviro-Con, Inc.) (experience bond)
3. Howard County, MD (ffl, 2-15-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.)
(performance bond)
4. Newton. IA (VH, 12-6-79) (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Services. Ltd.) (bid
bond)
5. Seaford, DE (ID. 1-8-79) (National
Hydro Systems, Inc.) (experience
bond)
-53-
-------
BUY AMERICAN
BuyAi
81:49 Los Angeles County, CA (ES, 7-
1-81) (Dresser Industries) (preference
depending upon delivered price).
81:58 Ashland. KY (IV, 7-27-81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (domestic
preference) (reversed by reconsideration
81:79),
81:79 Ashland, KY (TV, 10-1-81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) ( domestic
preference mandatory).
82:23 Passaic Valley. NJ (H, 4-20-82)
(Rochester Pump and Machine) (price
comparison by informal negotiation
after bid opening).
82:38 Fulton. NY (fl, 7-16-82) (LOC
Pump and Equipment) (refers to place o£
manufacture not to design features).
Buy American Act Requirements
*1. Concord, NH (1, 4-18-79) (Passavant
Corp.) (construction materials)
2. Concord, NH (L 10-4-79) (Bethlehem
Steel Corp.) (6% preference)
3. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority, FL (W. 10-3-79) (Radiation
Dynamics)
4. Newton, IA (VII, 12-8-79) (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
(protestant must prove jurisdiction)
A'nencan Act Requirements (Re-
cently made applicable by Section
215 of the Clean Water Act of
1977; Pub. L. No. 05-217).
COMPETITION
Competition
84:21 Ardmore, OK (VI. 5-4-84) (LYCO
and Walker Process Corp.) (to
obtain maximum open free
competition specification must be
performance based when possible).
Competition
.4. General
81:92 Hallandale. FL (IV, 11-3-61)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services.
Interstate Pipe Maintenance: and
Polymer Chemical Corp.) (sufficient
competition on single material
distnbuted by independent sources).
B. Free and open
81:02 Little Blue Valley. MO (VII. 1-
8-81) (Eby Const.) (award to low
responsive responsible bidder).
81:17 McHenry County, IL(V. 3-16-
81) (Pio Lombardo & Assoc.) (local
preference impermissible A/E
evaluation criterion).
81:19 Phoenix. AZ (IX. 3-27-81)
(TCK Const aad MM. Sundt Const) (no
unfair advantage from supplier
substitution).
81:43 Honolulu, HI (DC 8-11-81)
(Hawaii Concrete Products) (disguised
sole source).
81:80 Sacramento County, CA (EC
10-2-31) (Westates Carbon Co.) (unduly
restrictive experience requirement).
82:17 Lummi Indian. WA (X. 3-28-
82) (Walker Processing Corp.) (approval
of only one supplier not proof of
violation).
C. De Facto
82:34 Monterey. CA (IX 6-24-32)
(Frank M. Booth. Inc.) (competition
where one manufacturer exists but
others can meet specifications).
Cofnpatttioii
A. General
1. Odessa, TX (VL 2-4-80) (Cifford-Hill and
Company) (tingle pip* material).
2. Tolleson. AZ (K. 3-17-60) (Hydro
Conduit Corporation) (single pipe material).
3. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
OH (V. 10-14-80) (Id Americas. Inc.) (single
material for carbon columns). .
B. De Facto
1. Alma. N? (YD. 9-4-90) (William
Anderson Company. Inc.) (4 of 8 bidden bid
no charge for sealant).
C Free and Open
1. Cordele. CA (IV, 4-10-80) (Ralph Healey
ft Associates, Inc.) (manufacturers only).
Competition
A General
1. Atlanta, GA (IV, 3-21-79) (Fruin-
Conlon Corp.)
2. Chattanooga, TN (IV, 3-27-79)
(Performance Systems, Inc.)
*3. De Kalb Sanitary District, IL (V, 2-
15-79) (Autotrol Corp.)
4. Gainsville. GA (IV, 6-15-79) (National
Hydro Systems, Inc. (IT)) (supply of
equipment)
-54-
-------
COMPETITION (CONTINUED)
5. Laurens County, SC (TVY7-10-79)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co., et al)
(pipej
B. DeFacto
•1. De Kalb Sanitary District IL (V, 2-
15-79] (Autotrol Corp.)
C. Free and Open - -
1. Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, N] (H. 4-13-79)
(Passavant Corp.)
Competition {e.g. |§ 35.936-3. 35.936-13: see
;T ulia. whether an acceptable level of
I'Tipetttion. in fact, occurred):
1 Chester. South Carolina (IV 3-29-78)
..•.lima Concrete Pipe Co | (single p.pe
• vri.il selection — vitrified cl.iv I
J CumbcrUnd County. New jersev (II. 3-
•I-"8) (Dorr-Oliver Inc.) (ultimately
>nconformmg. prequalified equipment
- ipplier)
) Newton. North Carolina (IV. 4-25-78)
(..irolma Concrete Pipe Co.) (pipe material
- .pction limited to 3 types — vitrified clay.
-I'd reinforced concrete or ductile iron)
4. Olympia. Washington (X. 5-30-78)
'Vntech Division of Houdaille Industries
I-K. ) (project design exclusion, f 35939(j)(5) —
>m-Mie oxygenation generation system for
^iudge treatment)
"5. Onondaga County. New York (II. 7-11-
~H| (Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries
l-ii. ) (project design exclusion. § 35.939(])(5)—
I'f-sile oxygenation generation system for
Mudge treatment: licensee — licensor
'< Intionship as permitting competition)
0 Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-6-78) (FMC
< >>rp ) (project design exclusion:
* 15 939(j)(5)— closed tank nitrification
^ Mem)
I B) General—Free and Open.
1. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78) (Autotrol)
(["idling biological disc equipment—salient
pi-rformance requirements)
2. Newcastle. Indiana (V. 5-18-78) (Spencer
1 urbine Co.) (approval of offered equipment
iii-ms as controlled by specification)
3. Onondagd County. New York (II. 6-30—
7H| (Zimpro Inc.) (bidding competitions
svstem)
'4. Onondaga County. New York—
Reconsideration (II. 7-19-78) (Zimpro Inc )
(F.I'A competitive process and overview)
'5. Pnnce William County. Virginia (Hi. 8-
4-78) (Spencer Turbine Co.) (approval of
offered equipment under rational basis
analysis)
'6 Breese. Illmios (V. 10-18-78) (Midwest
Soil Products and Davco-Defiance)
(functional equivalency—carbon steel to
solid stainless steel pump shaft)
7. Frankfort. Kentucky. (IV. 10-18-78)
(Passavant)
8. Fairfield. New Jersey (II. 10-20-78) (Loc
Pump) (salient performance requirements as
standard: functional equivelency—rubber
gasket to metal-to-metal connection of pump
al discharge pipe)
•9. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 11-2-78)
(Philadelphia Gear) (functional equivalency—
parallel to right angle shaft for design of
aerator speed reducer driver)
Competition (§35.S -5).
(A) DeFacto:
1. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
(Southerly Plant). Ohio (V. 11-15-76)
(Powercon Corp.)
2. Hope. Arkansas (VI, 9-1-77) (pipe)
(Hydro Conduit: Choctaw Culvert (Di-
vision of Choctaw Inc.): Jonesboro
Concrete Pipe Co.)
3. Contra Costa County, California
(IX, 10-25-77) (Annco Steel)
(B) General—free and open:
1. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Au-
thority, Florida (IV. 3-H-76) (George
Hyman Construction Co.)
2, Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority
(Manassas Park). Virginia (III, 6-24-
76) (subcontractor listing) (Savoy Con-
struction Co.)
3. Chatham County (Isle of Hope).
Georgia (IV. 7-8-76) (pipe) (Kyle-Gif-
ford-Hill Inc.)
4. Westchester County, New York
(II, 9-7-76) (Union Carbide Corp.)
-55-
-------
COMPETITION (CONTINUED)
5. Bfrpen County. New Jersey (II. 9-
28-76) (Wm. L. Crow-Wolff & Municr,
Joint Venture)
6. Greenwood (Rocky-Coronaca),
South Carolina (IV. 10-6-76) (pipe)
(Metromount Materials; Carolina Con-
crete Pipe Co.: Wallace Concrete Pipe
Co.. Inc.; South Carolina Pipe Associ-
ation: Amoco Reinforced Plastics Co.)
•7. Palm Beach County, Florida (IV,
10-8-76) (pipe) (Price Brothers)
•8. Waterford, Connecticut (I. 3-4-
77) (Loc Pump and Equipment)
9. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
Authority (II. 3-31-77) (Blythe Indus-
tries, Inc.)
10. Pasadena. Texas (VI. 4-1-77)
(Union Carbide Corp.)
11. Parsippany-Troy Hills. New
Jersey (II. 7-8-77) (Frank Briscoe)
12. Jackson, Mississippi (IV, 8-19-77)
(pipe) (American Cast Iron Pipe Com-
pany)
13. Cheektowaga. New York (II. 8-
31-77) (Amadort Construction Co.)
14. Orange County. California (IX,
11-2-77) (Pentech Division of Hou-
daille Industries)
15. Ramsey. New Jersey (II. 12-2-77)
(P. & A. Construction Co.)
•16. Passaic Valley Sewerage Com-
missioners, Newarjt, New Jersey (II,
12-10-77) (BSP Division of Envirotech
Corp.)
CONFLICT OF
INTEREST
Conflict of Interest
83:29 Fargo, ND (VIE. 5-18-83H Von
Bergen SrMarkson, Inc^ The Gray
Engineering Group, Inc. &
Conaervatek. Inc.) (Code of Conduct
raus* be maintained by grantee)
(potential conflict where City official
engaged in contracting business).
Conflict of Interest
81:01 N.Y. State DEC, NY 0L 1-7-81)
(Sweda Enterprises] (Firms representing
other clients, not protestable).
Conflict of Interest
1. Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council [Fort Myers], PL (IV, 12-3-60) (Jones.
Edmunds and Associates/Mlssimer &
Associates) (A/E with contracts to assess
and to inspect seawalls).
Conflict of Interest
1. Miama-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority, FL (IV, 10-3-79) (Radiation
Dynamics, Inc.)
Conflict of Interest.
•1. Newton. North Carolina (IV. 4-25-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.] (personal—
competitor supplier's counsel as counsel for
grantee consultant)
Conflict of Interest
1. Atlanta. Georgia
(Mayer & Associates)
Davis-Bacon Act.
(IV. 5-11-77)
DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE
Descriptive Literature Requirement (Test
Data, etc.)
81:47 lasonville. IN (V, 6-30-81)
(Hinde Engineering] [incorrect
information submitted late).
82:12 Charmelview. TX (VI. 3-«-«2)
(Euramca Ecosystems) (must allow 30
days for submitting data).
Descriptive Literature Requirement
(.see also. Responsiveness; Respon-
sibility.)
1. South Portland. Main (I. 10-7-75)
(Pizzagalli Construction Co.)
2. Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority
(Manassas Park). Virginia (III. 11-13-
75) (John C. Grimberg)
3. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Au-
thority. Florida (IV. 9-27-76) (Altman-
Myers Construction Inc.)
4. Norwalk, Connecticut (I, 7-22-77)
(Primiano Construction Co.)
-56-
-------
DESIGN DECISIONS
System Design
1. Kansas City, MO (YE, 12-20-79)
(Carney Companies) (tunnelling)
2. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, H. (V, 8-16-79)
(Troesch Tracking, Inc.)
System Design. Choice of (eg.. §§ 35.917 and
35 939(|)(5)| (gfp also Ei>i;inpcring /udf>mi'nt.-i:
tion; .\'on-Rf>±!,'i('tn r Spat ificulioiii>/.
1. Olympm, Washington (X. 5-30-78)
(Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries.
Inc.)
2. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
(Westerly Plant). Ohio (V. 6-14-78)
(Mclaughlin & Associates) (v restrictive
specification)
*3. Onondaga County. New York (II. 7-11-
78) (Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries.
Inc.)
System Design, Choice of (§§35.917
and 35.939(j)<5» (See also. Engi-
neering Judgment).
1. Hudson, Wyoming (VIII. 8-1-74)
(Environmental Equipment Co.)
•2. District of Columbia (Blue
Plains) (HI. 2-20-75) (submerged tur-
bine aerators vs. without turbines)
(Kenics Corp.)
3. St. Joseph, Missouri (VII. 2-20-76)
(specification amendment which de-
letes use of a performance method)
(Turzillo Contracting Co.)
4. Appleton, Wisconsin (V, 5-17-76)
(engineering judgment) (Philadelphia
Mixers)
5. Sacramento, California (IX. 10-6-
76) (specifying O. & M. factors-
energy efficiency) (Air Products and
Chemicals Inc.)
6. Oxnard, California (IX. 12-1-76)
(specification for' digester prestress-
ing) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
7. Orange County, California (IX,
11-2-77) (oxygen generation facilities
vs. alternate system) (Pentech Divi-
sion of Houdaille Industries).
Time Limitations (§ 35.939(b)).
1. Denver, (City) Colorado (VIII. 4-
22-74) (waiver, reversed by new regula-
tions) (Pinkard Donovan)
2. Hudson. Wyoming (VIII, 8-1-74)
(Environmental Equipment)
3. Omaha, Nebraska (VII. 9-14-74)
(Datamaster Div.— ACCO)
4. Henry, South Dakota (VIII. 9-15-
75) (Henningsen)
5. Oregon, Ohio (V. 11-6-75) (timeli-
ness as jurisdictional) (Ohio Control
Systems)
6. Sunnyvale, California (IX. 12-5-
75) (oral protest—revised by new regu-
lations) (ABP Contractors)
7. Butler County (LeSourdesville
Plant), Ohio (V, 1-7-76) (restrictive
specifications—subtler—grantee final-
ity rule) (EPCO—Hormel)
•8. Spokane, Washington (X, 1-9-76)
(restrictive specifications—grantee fi-
nality rule) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
9. Palmer Lake. Colorado (VIII. 1-
16-76) (grantee finality rule) (Dugan
Construction Co.)
10. Predonia. New York (II, 4-15-76)
(Tenco Hydro-Aerosciences)
11. Denver (City and County). Colo-
rado (VIII. 7-9-76) (Prank Briscoe)
12. Hancock, Michigan (V, 7-12-76)
(grantee decision to use negotiated
procurement) (Maclean Construction
Co.)
•13. Sacramento, California (IX, 9-9-
76) (restrictive specifications—or
equal—grantee's finality) (Air Prod-
ucts & Chemicals Inc.)
•14. Sacramento, California (IX, 9-
13-76) (restrictive specifications—or
equal—grantee's finality) (Amoco Re-
inforced Plastics)
•15. North Shore Sanitary District.
Illinois (V. 9-28-76) (restrictive specifi-
cations—rejection of equipment-
grantee finality rule) (Keene Corp.;
Premier Electric Co.)
16. Deposit. New York (II. 10-5-76)
(Albin Construction Co.)
•17. Boynton Beach/Delray Beach,
Florida (IV. 10-14-76) (oral protest)
(Ecological Services Products)
•18. Concord. North Carolina (IV,
10-14-76) (subtler—timely oral request
but untimely written) (Air Products &
Chemical Inc.)
19. Lynn, Massachusetts (I, 10-21-
76) (A/E procurement; grantee finality
rule) (Clinton Bogert Associates)
20. Baton Rouge. Louisiana (VI. 11-
5-76) (restrictive specifications—sub-
tier) (National Hydro Systems)
21. Detroit. Michigan (V. 11-10-76)
(estoppel—bidder on second procure-
ment to challenge rejection of all bids
on first) (Lotepro Corp.)
22. Cleveland Regional Sewer Dis-
trict (Southerly Plant), Ohio (V. 11-
15-76) (restrictive specifications)
(Powereon Corp.)
23.'Norwalk, Connecticut (I. 11-16-
75) (letter to State) (Burnalli Con-
struction Co.)
•24. Waterford. Connecticut (I, 12-
28-76) (restrictive specifications—or
equal; finality rule) (New Ikor I)
-57-
-------
DESIGN
DECISIONS (CONTINUED)
25. Fredonia, New York (II. 2-28-77)
(restrictive specifications—subtler-
equipment acceptability determina-
tion) (National Hydro Systems)
•26. Waterford, Connecticut (I. 3-4-
77) (restrictive specifications—or
equal) (New Ikor II)
•27. Dothan, Alabama (IV. 3-10-77)
(restrictive specifications—or equal-
grantee reversed) (Infilco Degremont)
28. Sioux City. Iowa (VII. 3-17-77)
(restrictive specifications—rejection of
shop drawings necessary) (Ralph
Carter Co.; U.S. Enviro-Con)
29. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sev.tr
Authority (II. 3-31-77) (carbon cops -o
local EPA office) (Blythe Indus'..-.^
Inc.)
30. Pasadena, Texas (VI. 4-1-77) (re-
strictive specifications—Subtler—
grantee finality rule) (Union Carbide
Corp.)
31. York. Pennsylvania (III. 4-22-77)
.(grantee finality rule stated) (L"n:u:i
Carbide Corp.)
32. Marion, North Carolina (IV, 5-
17-77) (restrictive specifications—ad-
mission against interest), (Carolina
Concrete Pipe)
33. Bernice, Louisiana (VI, 6-1-77)
(restrictive specifications—subt :i-r—
performance data) (National Hyuio
Systems)
34. Bradford, Vermont (I. 6-6-77) (no
simultaneous mailing; contract action
as irrantee's final act) (Carvel Go.)
35. Daytona Beach, Florida (IV,. 6-
14-77) (letter of intent to file—su-M1-
quent- untimely filing) (Key Po-.\or
Systems)
36. San Francisco. California (IX. 6-
20-77) (A/E procurement—Newspaper
column as notice) (McKee-Berger-
Mansueto)
37. Parsippany-Troy Hills. New-
Jersey (II. 7-8-77) (knowledge of
grantee finality from totality of facts)
(Frank Briscoe)
38. Cayce. South Carolina (IV, 7-18-
77) (restrictive specifications—P'P^
(Southeastern Concrete)
39. Canonsberg-Houston Joint Au-
thority, Pennsylvania (III, 7-2-7 <)
(National Hydro Systems)
40. Cranberry Township, Peiinsy'va'
nia (III, 9-30-77) (restrictive specu'i"a-
tions—preapproval) (Bay-Con Corp.'
41. Pepperell, Massachusetts (I. i1"
22-77) (not decisional—statement ol
notice rule) (Catamount Co.)
-58-
-------
E.E.O.
E.E.O.
83:12 Le Clarie, IA (VII. 2-23-83) (C.
Iber&Sons, Inc.) (submittal of
documents after bid opening).
E.E.O.
81:59 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X. 4-29-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const, and Assoc.)
(responsibility, not responsiveness).
81:95 Fowlerville. MI (V. 11-9-61)
(Normco Const.) (responsiveness, not
responsibility).
81:101 Chicago MSD, IL (V, 12-16-81)
(Walsh Const) (responsibility, not
responsiveness).
82:04 Westport. SD (VIII. 2-3-82)
(H.F. Jacobs and Sons) (responsibility.
not responsiveness).
E.E.O.
1. Skagit County, WA (X, 5-4-79)
(Glantz Supply, Inc.)
2. Meriden. CT (1.10-10-79) (Standard
Engineers and Constructors, Inc.)
Equal Employment Opportunity (40 C.F R.
Part 8) (\otice- the President, through
Executive Order 12086 (October 5. 1978).
transferred ail primary contract compliance
responsibilities and functions from pre\iously
designated contract compliance agencies (e g
EPA) to the Department of Labor. EPA
contract compliance activities are being
integrated into the Department of Labor
Accordingly. Part 8 no longer reflects the
obligations and responsibilities of EPA as a
primary contract compliance agency for
"contract compliance functions under the
construction grants program) [see a/so.
Responsiveness. Mmont\ Business
Enterprise}.
1. Sandusky. Ohio (V. 1-13-78) (Bay-Con
Corp.) (certification)
'2. West Cosh en. Pennsylvania (III. 3-2-78)
(Philips Bros. Electrical Contractors) (EO
11246—Philadelphia Imposed Plan)
'3. San Francisco. California (IX. 8-9-78)
(Slaltery Assoc., Fischbach and Moore Inc.
and Mornson-Knudsen Co. Inc.. joint venture)
(Minority business enterprise-local
requirements)
Equal Employment Opportunity, (40
CFR Part 8) (see also. Responsive-
ness, but see Minority Business En-
terprise').
1. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
(Southwest Plant) (III.- 2-28-75) (EO
11246—Philadelphia Imposed Plan)
(Air Products
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement
1. St. Petersburg. FL (IV, 1-10 -BO)
(Municipal and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
(limiting grant eligibility in rebiddlng).
2. Checotah. OK (VI. 6-18-80) (Sherman
Machine and Iron Works. Inc.) (limiting
additional cost if equipment reprocured).
Enforcement
1. Glenbard Waatewater Authority, TL
(V, 4-&-T9) [USEMCO, Inc)
•2. ML Pleasant, MI (V, 6-25-79)
(Contracts 2 & 3) (Collavino Brothers,
Construction Co.)
Enforcement.
'1. Knoxville, Tennessee (IV. 2-8-78) (Roy
F Weston Inc.) (A/E procurement-EPA
rcmdnd authority)
2. Wells. Maine (I. 3-17-78) (Purcell Pump)
(barring grantee rejection of equipment)
"3. Cumberland County. New Jersey (II. 3-
31-78) (Dorr-Oliver Inc.) (Technical
nonrestrictive specification requirement in
post-contract context)
4. Ml. Olive. North Carolina (IV. 5-18-78)
(Lycc-Zf)
5. Washtenaw County. Michigan (V. 7-13-
78) (Spence Bros.) (award to low base bid or
readvertise)
*6. Washington County. Oregon (X. 7-31-
78) (North American Contractors Inc.) (EPA
directed rejection of all bids and negotiation
on rebid)
7. Chester. South Carolina (IV. 8-7-78)
(Preston Carroll Construction Co.) (EPA
directed rejection of all bids: accelerated
reprocuremen! by negotiation approved)
8 San Francisco California (IX H-17-7B) (E
& I tnc ) (rational basis justification for
performance bond]
9 Newcastle Indiana—Reconsideration (V.
5-23-78) (requesl of Newcastle. Indi.ina)
(retrofit items procured to Lunform to
determination)
10 Oklahoma CiU Oklahoma (VI B-2S-7H)
(Automatic Engineering Inc ) (award to other
subcontractors or reprocure at no rMra rest
to EPA)
11 Chatanooga Tennessee (IV. 9-20-78)
(Passavant Corp )
12 Concord. North Carolina (IV. 10-24-78!
(EDC/'Envtro Development Inc )
Enforcement
1. Lexington. Virginia (III. 8-14-74)
(bond) (Hydro-Systems Inc.)
2. Grand Forks. North Dakota ivm.
8-15-74) (Komline-Sanderson)
3. Lake Charles, Louisiana (VI. 12-
15-74) (Flygt Corp.)
4. Tonawanda. New York (II. 8-1-75)
(Ingersoll-Rand)
5. Clark Co. (Las Vegas) Sanitary
District (No. 1) Nevada (IX, 12-24-75)
(alternative) (Bovee & Crail Construc-
tion Co.)
•6. Spokane, Washington (X. 1-9-76)
(BBR Prestressed Tanks Inc.)
7. Palmer Lake. Colorado (VIII, 1-
16-76) (Dugan Construction Co.)
8. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Au-
thority. Florida CIV. 3-11-76) (George
Hyman Construction Co.)
9. Sioux City. Iowa (VII, 7-12-76)
(U.S. Enviro-Con Inc.)
10. Sacramento. California (IX, 9-9-
76) (Air Products & Chemicals Inc.)
11. Bergen County. New Jersey (II,
9-28-76) (Wm. L. Crow-Wolff &
Munier, Joint Venture)
12. Palm Beach County, Florida (IV.
10-8-76) (Price Brothers)
13. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(Northeast Plant) (III. 12-6-76) (Sov-
ereign Construction Co.)
14. Watcrford. Connecticut (I, 12-28-
76) (New Ikor I)
15. Bradford. Vermont (I. 3-4-77)
(Cummings)
16. Waterford, Connecticut (I. 3-4-
77) (New Ikor II)
17. Sioux City. Iowa (VII. 3-17-77)
(Ralph B. Carter Inc.: and U.S. Enviro-
Con Inc.)
18. Put'i to Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
Authority (II. 3-31-77) (Blythe Indus-
tries Inc.)
19. Delano. California (IX. 4-8-77)
(specification revision) (Hydro Con-
duit Corp. and Cen-Vi-Ro Concrete
Pipe & Product* Co.. Inc.)
•20. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (VI,
5-18-77) (Ingersoll-Rand I)
21. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority, Florida (IV, 5-25-77) (Mor-
eanti South-Wolff & Munier Joint
Venture and Intercounty Construction
Corp.)
22. Watertown. New York (II, 7-5-
77) (Vincent J. Fasano, Inc.)
23. Oklahoma City. Oklahoma (VI,
7-13-77) (Ingersoll-Rand II)
24. Toms Brook—Maurertown. Vir-
ginia (III. 9-20-77) (National Hydro
Systems)
25. McFarland. California (IX. 9-29-
77) (Lagoon Aeration Corp.)
26. Cranberry Township, Pennsylva-
nia (III, 10-20-77) (Bay-Con Corp.)
27. Contra Costa County. California
(IX. 10-25-77) (Armco Steel)
28. Loxahatchee River Environmen-
tal Control District. Florida (IV. 11-3-
77) (Guy Villa & Sons Inc.)
29. Brick Township. New Jersey (II,
11-22-77) (P. & A. Construction Co.)
3J). Bridgewater. New Jersey (II, 12-
2-77) (Lombardo Contracting Co.)
31. Ramsey, New Jersey (II. 12-2-77)
(P. & A. Construction Co.)
32. Corvallis, Oregon (X. 12-6-77)
(Frank Coluccio Construction Co.)
33. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sioners, Newark, New Jersey (II, 12-
10-77) (BSP Division of Envirotech
Corp.)
-60-
-------
ENGINEERING JUDGMENT
Engineering Judgment
84:07 Metropolitan Sanitary Chat of
Greater Chicago. IL (V. 2-6-84) (A./.
Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind. Inc.. and
Klein Const Co.) (technical
feasibility of equipment offered).
84:08 Western Carolina Regional
Sewer Authority, Greenville. SC (IV.
2-17-84) (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley)
(EPA compares engineer's minimum
performance requirements with his
reasons for rejecting supplier).
84:18 Town of Milford. MA (I, 4-20-64)
(Euramca Ecosystems, Inc.)
(rational basis for denying
prequalification of a proposal not
meeting specifications).
Engineering Judgment
83:20 Los Angeles. CA (IX, 3-28-64)
(Solar Turbiaes, Inc.) (basic design
decision not protestaole where baaed
on performance needs).
83:23 Jerseyville. IL (V, 4-14-83) (Clow
Corp.) (must show rational basis foe
using brand name specification}.
83:30 St. Albans. WV (III. 5-27-83)
(Ralph 3, Carter Co.) (performance *
tests of equipment).
83:37 Central Valtey. UT (Vffl. 8-17-83)
(American Surfpac. Inc.} (choice of
filter media not basic design and may
be protested).
83:55 Brazos River. TX (VI. 9-23-83)
(Jeffery Manufacturing Div.]
(technical features need not be only
choice available if rational) (reliability
requirements consideration).
81:08 Morgantown,WV (HL 2-1-81)
(Clow Co.) (sole sourcing must be baaed
on minimum needs).
81:58 Ashland. KY (IV, 7-27-81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (speculative
maintenance problems).
81:61 Southington. CT [L 8-7-81)
(Chemcon) (pump design).
81:69 Houma. LA (VI, 8-18-41)
(Hydromatic Pump) (cooduaory
representations).
81:74 Tifton. GA (IV. 9-1-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services)
(deference to engineer's judgment).
81:83 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority.
PA (m, 10-13-81) (RAM Asaoc.) (ability
to develop test data).
81:86 Huntsville, AL (IV. 10-15-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services.
and Astor Bolden Enterprises) (selection
of single material grout).
8149 Harford County, MD (III. 10-
19-61) (Schuylkill Products) (excluaioo
of a specific manufacturing process).
81:92 Hallandale. FL (IV. 11-3-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services;
Interstate Pipe Maintenance; and
Polymer Chemical Corp.) (use of single
material grout).
81:100 Harriman. TN (IV, 12-9-81)
(Municipal * Industrial Pipe Services)
(best able to restore technical matters
and evaluate specific project
requirements).
82412 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority.
PA (1IL 1-22-82) (RAM Assoc.) (bond
submittal in lieu of experience).
82.-08 Tangier. VA (III. 2-11-82)
(Ultraviolet Purification Systems)
(excess capacity requirement is rational
where design is experimental).
82:07 Chattanooga. TN (IV. 2-18-82)
(Spencer Turbine Co.) (cast iron to
insure reliability and performance).
82:10 SaugetlLfV. 2-19-82) (GHA
Lock Co.) (deference to technical
judgment of grantee).
8Z18 Miami-Dede Water & Sewer
Authority. FL (IV. 3-31-81) (Worthingtoa
Group) (requiring heavy duty pump).
82:44 Memphis. TN (TV. 8-16-82) (
B.F. Goodrich Co.) (exclusion of plastic
media bio Miter not rational).
82:45 Dumas, AR (VL 9-7-62) (Hmde
Engineering) (deference to engineer is
not absolute).
82:57 Cape May MUA.NJ (11,11-1-
82) (American Bioreactor Co. and
FairfieW Service) (baic project design).
82rtl El Dorado. KS (VH. 11-16-82)
(Ouraler Brothers Const.) (must be
rationally based).
82£7 CuHmaiLAL ffV. 11-30-831 [Cal
Corp^ Encore Corp^ and Drew aid
Assoc.] (deference to engineer's action
not absolute).
-61-
-------
ENGINEERING JUDGMENT
(CONTINUED)
Engineering Judgment
1. East Bay Discharger* Authority. CA (IX
1-30-60) (Capital Controls Company)
(rational basis to reject proposed equal).
2. Odessa, TX (VI2-4-60) (Gifford-Hill and
Company) (rational basis for single material).
3. Whitehall NY (0. 2-5-40) (Davis Water
ft Waste Industries. Inc.) (salient requirement
to meet minimum need).
4. ToUeson, AZ (IX 3-17-80) (Hydro
Conduit Corporation) (justification for single
material).
5. Puyallup. WA (X 4-24-80) (Rodding-
deaning Machines. Inc.) (requirement based
on performance need).
6. Moorhead. MN (V. 6-3-W) (Waldor
Pump ft Equipment Company) (consultant's
judgment to be rationally based).
7. Clarksville. TN (IV. 6-5-80) (Penetryn
Systems. Inc.) Qualification for single
material).
8. Cowry Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County. CA (DC. 6-28-60) (mgersoll-
Rand Co.) (rational performance related
basis).
9. Richmond. VA (ID. 7-1-80) (Lane
Construction Company; Clevepak
Corporation) (equipment rejection for •
performance needs has rational basis).
10. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
OH (V. 10-14-60) (Id Americas. Inc.) (single
material requirement has rational basis).
Engineering Judgment
1. Batesville, AR (VI, 1-12-79) (Hinde
Engineering Co.)
2. Cape May County, N] (H, 8-31-79]
(Clow/Envirodisc Corp.)
3. Chattanooga, TN (IV, 3-27-79)
(Performance Systems, foe.)
4. Cleveland Regional Sewer District.
OH—Clarification (V, 12-28-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.)
5. Concord, NH (1,4-18-79) (Passavant
Corp.) (Buy American)
6. Concord. NH (1,10-4-79) (Bethlehem
Steel Corp.) (Buy American)
7. GaihavUle, GA (IV, 8-15-79) (National
—Hydro ^ystems. Inc. (II))
8. Kansas City, MO (VD, 12-20-79)
(Carney Companies) (alternate -
method for tunnelling)
*9. La'urens County, SC (IV, 7-10-79)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co. et al.)
(justification for limiting choice of
materials)
11. Meriden, Ct (1,10-10-79) (Standard
Engineers and Constructors, Inc.)
12. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority, FL (IV, 10-3-79) (Radiation
Dynamics, Inc.) ._
13. Monterey County, CA (K, 2-28-79)
(Moneterey Construction Surveys,
Inc.)
14. Skagit County. WA (X, 5-4-79)"
(Glantz Supply, Inc.)
Engineering judgment (And SUP. \iin-
Restrictive Specifications]
1. Turlock. California (IX. 3-6-78) (Rega
Inc.) ("or equal" judgment).
'2. Chester. South Carolina (IV. 3-29-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (single pipe
material selection)
3. Cumberland County. Now Jersey (H. 3-
31-78) (Dorr-Oliver Inc ) (nonrompK inp
prc.ipproved supplier)
4 Front Royal. Virginia (III. 4-21-78) (Lyco-
zn
5. Olympia. Washington (X. 5-30-7HI
(Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries
Inc ) (proiecl design issui>-<*\>nen;ilnn sludpe
tiiMlment system)
6 Cleveland Regional Sower District
(Westerly Plant) Ohio (V. 9M4-7B)
(Mr.Laughhn ft Associates)
'7..Pnnce William Count\. Viryinid (111 8-
4-7'8l ISpenrer Turliini- Comp.in\ | I .n i-q;i.i!
deiiTniiiiiitKin ri-Mt'wed on r.iin'!'.,il '.,.i-,-^
si.ind.irdl
H Wiiu hebliT New H.impsh.n (I o-l-'pi
(Knxiro Dt-velopmpnt Co. Ini. |
9 Indianapolis. Indiana (V 10-6-7H] (Allis-
Chalmers) ("or equal" decision)
'10. Breese. Illinois (V. 10-18-78) (Midwest
Soil Products and Davco-Defianne) (Rdiional
b.isis standard)
11. Fairfield. New Jersey (II. 10-20-78) fl.oc
Pump)
12. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-31-78)
(Allis-Chalmers) ("or equal" decision!.
13 Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 11-2-78)
(Philadelphia Gear)
14. Urbana-Champaign. Illinois (V. 11-9-78)
(Norton Co.) (rational basis standard)
15. Waterford. Connecticut (1. 11-17-78)
(Purcell Pump)
Engineering Judgment.
1. Hudson. Wyoming (VIII. 8-1-74)
(Environmental Equipment Co.)
2. Grand Porks, North Dakota (VIII,
8-15-74) (Kornline-Sanderson)
3. Lake Charles, Louisiana (VI. 12-
15-74) (Flygt Corp.)
4. Englewood and Littleton, Colora-
do (VIII, 2-10-75) (Air Products and
Chemicals Inc.)
5. District of Columbia (Blue Plains)
(III. 2-20-75) (Kenics Corp.)
6. Appleton. Wisconsin (V. 5-17-76)
(Philadelphia Mixers Corp.)
•7. Chatham Co.. (Isle of Hope),
Georgia (IV, 7-8-76) (Kyle-Gilford-
Hill Inc.)
-62-
-------
ENGINEERING JUDGMENT
(CONTINUED)
8. Sioux City. Iowa (VII, 7-12-76)
(U.S. Enviro-Con)
9. Sacramento. California (IX. 8-12-
76) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
10. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority. Florida (IV, 9-27-76)
(Altman-Myers Construction Co.)
11. North Shore Sanitary District, Il-
linois (V, 9-28-76) (Keene Corp.: and
Premier Electrical Construction Co.)
12. Cleveland Regional Sewer Dis-
trict (Southerly Plant). Ohio (V. 11-
15-76) (Powercon Corp.)
13. Oxnard. California (IX. 12-1-76)
(BBR Prestressed Tanks)
14. Fredoma, New York (II, 2-28-77)
(National Hydro Systems)
15. Waterford, Connecticut (I, 3-4-
77) (Loc Pump and Equipment)
16. Dothan, Alabama (IV, 3-10-77)
(Inf ilco-Degremont)
17. Delano. California (IX. 4-8-77)
(Hydro Conduit Corp. and Cen-Vi-Ro
Concrete Pipe
-------
EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS
Experience Requirements
84:29 City of New York. NY {H. 8-15-
84) (Terminal Const. Corp.. and
FairfieldService Co.) (bond permits
flexibility in accepting manufacturer
with less experience but does not
require grantee to accept unproven
designs and untested equipment).
84:34 Glens Falls. NY (II. 8-30-84)
(Dorr-Oliver. Inc.) (matter of
responsibility not responsiveness)
(affirmative determination that
bidder has sufficient experience
based on its principal officer's
experience from former working
with a competitor).
Experience Requirement*
83:02 Columbus. OH (V. 1-12-aa)
(Cobey Metro—Waste Composting
Systems. Inc.] (experience clause
justified by complexity of the
equipment and innovative technology)
(supplier standing under Part 35 to
challenge clause and determination of
inadequate experience).
83:03 Columbus. OH [Reconsideration]
(V. 6-8-83) (Cobey Metro—Waste
Composting System. Inc.] (only must
prove rational basis for experience
requirement if protestor shows
competition affected).
83:24 Oklahoma City, OK (VL 4-29-83)
(D.J. Domas. Inc.) (general clause
requiring experience installing similar
equipment—no bond alternative).
83:24 Oklahoma City. OK
[Reconsideration) (VL 5-23-«3)
(Fiberglass Engineered Products* Inc. I
(requiring unspecific period of
experience is ambiguous).
33:38 Sacramento, CA (VIII, 6-17-83)
(Power Machine Co.) (must be
justified).
Experience Requirements
81:77 Carrboro. NC (IV. 9-23-81)
(Clevepak Corp.) (award to newly
formed corporation—experience
requirements discouraged).
81:80 Sacramento County.CA (IX.
10-2-81) (Westates Carbon Co.) (unduly
restrictive).
81:83 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (III. 10-13-81) (R&M Assoc.) (test
results or installation listing).
82:02 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (III, 1-22-82) (R*M Assoc.) (bond
submittal in lieu of experience)
(reconsideration).
82:83 Brockton. MA (I, 8-18-82)
(Tenco Hydro) (may be justified during
protest—must permit bond in lieu).
Experience Requirement*
1. Orange County Sanitation Districts of
Orange County. CA (IX 5-22-80) (Ralph B.
Carter Co.: Komline-Sanderson Engineering
Corp.) (experience as prequalification factor).
Experience Requirements
1. Barnstable, MA (I, 8-24-79)
(Chemcon, Inc.)
2. De Kalb Sanitary District H (V, 2-15-
79) (Autotrol Corp.) (RED equipment)
3. Howard County, MD 0H, 2-15-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.)
4. Seaford, DE (IB. 1-8-79) (National
Hydro Systems, Inc.),
Experience Requirements (§ 35.936-13(c))
(see Bonds: Non-Restrictive Specifications],
•1. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78)
(Autotrol) (rotating biological discs—100%
performance and 100% process guarantee
bonds: specifications waived)
'2. San Francisco. California (IX 3-22-78)
(E 4 !. Inc.) (bar screen equipment—prior
supply of equipment: no provision for bond:
no prior justification)
3. Front Royal. Virginia (HI. 4-21-78) (Lyco-
Zll (clarifier and related equipment:
performance data prequalification
requirement)
4. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority.
Florida (IV. 5-18-78) (Enviro Development
Co. and Poole & Kent Co.) (sludge dewatenng
system—bond in lieu of experience
requirement: responsiveness)
5. San Francisco. California (IX. 8-17-78) (E
& I. Inc.) (bar screen equipment—175% bond
in lieu of experience)
6. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-6-78) (FMC
Corp )
7 Silvrr City. New Mexico (VI. 10-13-78)
(F.nviro Development Co. Inc.)
8. Fairfield. New Jersey (II. 10-20-78) (Loc
Pump) (submersible pumps—list of
installations required in lieu of operating
data)
9. Concord. North Carolina (IV. 10-24-78)
(EDC/Enviro Development Inc.) (sludge
dewatermg system—5 years: procedures for.
written justification requirement)
10. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 11-2-78)
(Philadelphia Gear) (oxygen generation and
oxygenation system—5 years: overlap with
warranties: justification)
11. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Charlottesville. Virginia (III. 11-2-78)
(National Hydro Systems) (3 year: warranty
bonds: justification)
•1. Butler Co. (LeSourdsville Plant)
Ohio (V, 1-7-76) (EPCO—Hormel)
2. Bemice. Louisiana (VI, 6-1-77)
(National Hydro Sy-stems)
3. Kansas City. Kansas (VII, 11-17-
77) (Nichols Engineering & Research
Corp.; and Zimpro)
4. Amherst. New York (II, 11-22-77)
(Smith & Associates)
*5. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sioners, Newark, New Jersey (II. 12-
10-77) (BSP Division of Envirotech
Corp.)
-64-
-------
FORMAL
ADVERTISING
81:38 Indianapolis, IN (V, 5-27-81)
(American Digital Systems) (may be
used to procure SSES contractor).
82:06 Santa Fe. MM. (VL 2-18-62)
(Mesa Grande) (verbal IFB amendment).
82:83 Elk Pinch PSD. WV (ffl. 1-18-
82) (Kappe Assoc.. Inc.) (communicate
addenda in time for bid preparation).
82:88 Atwood. OH (V, 12-1-82}
(Munitech) (bidden on equal footing).
1. Springfield. Missouri (VII. 1-24-78)
(Armco Steel Corp.) (local preference rules
for supply of materials)
2. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-6-78) (Maulz &
Oren. Inc.) (waiver of bid irregularities)
3. Snyderville. Utah (VIII. 4-17-78)
(JHCobsen Construction Co. Inc.) (supplier
price and delivery data)
4. Washlenaw County. Michigan (V. 7-13-
7H| (Spence Bros.) (bid evaluation—base vs
allrrnale bid)
5 Washington County. Oregon (X. 7-31-78)
(North American Contractors Inc )
(explanation of method of contract award.
award to low bidder)
6. Greenville. Texas (VI. 12-7-78) (R. B
Carter)
7. Portage. Michigan (V. 12-20-78)
(lacobelli Construction Inc ) (reject 8 of 10
contracts)
1. Grand Forks, North Dakota (VIII.
8-15-74) (Komli'ne-Sanderson)
2. Henry. South Dakota (VIII. 9-15-
75) (in-state) (Henningsen Construc-
tion Co.)
3. South Portland. Maine (I. 10-7-75)
(Pizzagalli Construction Co.)
4. Washington Surburban Sanitary
Commission, Maryland (III, 10-15-75)
(notice of state court case) (Volpe
Construction Co.; and John C. Grim-
berg)
5. Monroe. Washington (X. 12-31-75)
(Will Construction Co.)
6. St. Joseph, Missouri (VII. 2-20-76)
(Addenda issuance) (Turzillo Contract-
ing Co.)
7. Huntington, West Virginia (HI. 4-
9-76) (National Engineering and Con-
tracting Co.; and Envirotech Corp.)
8. Phoenix. New York (II, 5-7-76)
(Vincent J. Fasano)
9. Deposit, New York (II. 10-5-76)
(reprocurement) (Albin Construction
Corp.)
•10. St. Paul (Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission). Minnesota (V.
12-3-76) (Kvalsten Electric)
11. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer
Authority, (II, 3-31-77) (Elythe Indus-
tries Inc.)
12. Lynden. Washington (X, 5-16-77)
(Arcomm Construction Co.)
•13. Bradford, Vermont (I. 6-6-77)
(Carvel Co.)
14. Middlesex (Sayreville Relief
Pump Station), New Jersey, (II, 6-9-
77) (Terminal Construction Co.)
15. Parsippany-Troy Hills, New
Jersey (II, 7-8-77) (Frank Briscoe)
16. Loxahatachee River Environ-
mental Control District, Florida (IV,
11-3-77) (reprocurement) (Guy Villa &
Recipient
RESPONSIBILITY
Grantee Responsibility
81:33 Lynchburg. OH (V. 4-30-81)
(Dow Const) (state/local legal
determination).
81:46 San Francisco. CA (IX 3-27-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractors
and Suppliers) (contract administration
to maximize MBE),
81:88 Warren County MUA. NJ (IL 8-
19-81) (Schuylkill Products) (evaluation
of other materials where two materials
specified).
82:12 Channelview, TX (VL 3-«-82)
(Euramca Ecosystems) (when
prequalifying equipment must allow 30
days for submitting data).
82:22 Goldendale. WAS (X 4-16-82)
(IMCO General Const) (give parties
notice of protest procedure and
opportunity to express views).
8:41 Abilene. TX (VL 7-27-82) (R4M
Engineering) (allow contractor rebuttal
before finding nonresponsible for prior
inadequate performance).
82:45 Pasadena, TX (VL 8-17-82)
(Parkson) (pre-rejection notice of
reasons for rejection not necessary).
82:49 Dumas. AR (VL 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering) (rebuttal opportunity).
82:70 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X12-
22-82) (Robert Dougan Const) (rejection
of all bids if specifications unduly
restrictive).
Grantee Responsibilities
1. Cleveland Regional Sewer District,
OH—Clarification (V. 12-28-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.)
2. Cochran, GA (IV. 9-14-79) (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Service, Ltd.)
3. Conneaut. OH (V, 7-18-79) (Hoff-
Weston)
4. Gainesville, GA (IV, 6-15-79)
(National Hydro System, Inc. (II))
(review of shop drawings, notification
of defects)
5. Glenbard Wastewater Authority, IL
(V, 4-6-79) (USEMCO, Inc.)
6. Monterey County, CA (IX 2-26-79)
(Monterey Construction Surveys, Inc.)
Grantee Responsibilities
1. Nashville. Ml (V, 10-24-80) (Clark
Construction Company) (MBE goals.
investigation of MBE status).
Grantee Responsibilities (§§ 30.210 and
35.936-5).
1. Sussex. Wisconsin (V. 4-14-77)
(Fisher & Porter)
2. Bradford, Vermont (I. 6-6-77)
(Carvel Co.)
3. Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey
(It 7-S-77) (Frank Briscoe)
-65-
-------
INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES
Ambiguity
Innovative and Alternative Technology
1. Miami—Dade Water and Sewer
Authority, FL (IV, 10-3-79] {Radiation
Dynamics, Inc.)
Innovative and Alternative Technologies
($5 35.908. 35.917-l(d). 35.930-5. 35.935-20.
.arid 35.936-13. and 43 Fed. Reg. 44026-29
September 27.1978) (see also, jurisdiction).
1. Olympia. Washington {X. 5-30-78)
(Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries.
Inc.) (protest design considerations: cost-
effectiveness)
2. Onondaga County. New York (II. 7-11-
78) (Pentech Division of Houdaille Industries
Inc.)
•3. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-6-78) (FMC
Corp.) (open tank nitrification system)
INVITATION
FOR BIDS
Invitation for Bids
A. Addenda
83:16 Halstead, Hutchinson, KS (VU, 3-
9-83) (Charles E. Stevens) (where
addenda had no connection with bid
preparation no harm in short notice
period).
83:69 Conroe. TX (VI, 12-13-83) (KNC,
Inc.) (verbal addenda generally
prohibited) (inadequate time to
consider addenda).
Invitation for Bid (IFB)
A. Ambiguity
84:10 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago, EL (V, 3-1-84)
(Premier Electrical Const. Co.) (non
prejudicial ambiguity in
specification as to how post-bid
opening submittal considered in
determining responsibility).
84:13 New Hampshire Water Supply &
Pollution Control NH (I, 3-28-84)
. (Catamount Const.. Inc.) (IFB not
clear and unequivocal as to
equipment listing requirement) (two
prong test considers all bid
documents).
84:15 Mattabassett Dist Regional
Sewer Auth.. Cromwell. CT (1.4-12-
84) (PeabpdyN£.. Inc.) (material
ambiguities as to bid evaluation and
what constitute responsiveness
potentially affected competition and
required cancelling solicitation).
84:24 City of Leominister, MA (I. 8-11-
84) (P. Gioioso 6-Sons. Inc.)
(potential ambiguity not shown to
have affected competition does not
justify rejecting all bids).
84:28 Libby. MT (VHL 8-9-84)
(Transamerican Contractors. Inc.)
(listing requirement was
responsibility matter due to
ambiguity inspite of grantee intent).
Ambiguity
83:08 Hamilton. MT (VIE, 2-8-83) (4C
Plumbing & Heating. Inc.) (MBE
requirements unclear as to
responsiveness).
83:27 Port Arthur, TX (V, 5-12-83)
(Robert Bossow, Inc.) (unclear bid
evaluation method harmless error
where no reliance by or prejudice to
bidder).
83:36 Bentonville. AR (VI. 6-14-83)
(Archer Henry Const, Co.) (harmless
error where no prejudice to bidder).
83:64 Los Angeles, CA (IX. 11-25-83)
(C K Pump & Dewatering Corp.)
(ambiguous MBE requirements cause
for rejecting all bids).
83:68 Tri-City.'OR (X. 12-9-83)
(Dresser Industries, Inc.) (to
determine if specifications restrictive
consider extrinsic factors like trade
custom).
-66-
-------
INVITATION FOR BIDS
Ambiguity (CONTINUED)
81:03 Pierce County, WA (X, 1-14-
81) (Frank Coluccio Const) (MBE
requirements).
81:20 Tupelo, MS (TV, 4-7-81) (Jesco,
Inc.) (equipment listing requirement).
81:22 Corvallis, OR (X. 4-10-81)
(Environmental Pollution Control, Inc.)
(reject all bids and readvertise).
81:30 Portage. IN (V, 4-28-61)
(Associated Mechanical Services) (MBE
requirements).
81:50 Kalida. OH (V, 7-2-81)
(Sherbum Co.) (alternate pipe materials
not prejudicial).
81:51 Lynchberg. OH (V, 7-21-81)
(Dow Construction Corp.) (bid clarified
after opening).
81:73 Valparaiso. IN (V, 8-28-81) (H.
DeWulf Mechanical Contractor) (MBE
requirements).
81.78 Chicago MSD. IL TV, 10-27-81)
(S.A. Healy) (MBE requirements).
81:82 Batesville, IN (V. 10-7-81)
(Bowen Engineering) (MBE
requirements)..
81:90 Chicago MSD. IL (V. 10-27-61)
(S.A. Healy, et al.) (MBE requirements)
(reconsideration see 81:78).
81:97 Elmhurst, IL (V, 11-12-81)
(Miller-Davis) (MBE requirements).
82:15 Philadelphia, PA (ID. 3-16-82)
(Williard, Inc.] (prejudice to bidders
justifies rejection of all bids).
Ambiguity
1. San Buenaventura, CA (DC. 3-28-40) (A.
A. Portanova ft Sons) (difference between
unit price and extended total).
2. Glennville, GA (IV. 4-4-80) 0- W.
Meadon and Company) (unsolicited
discount).
3. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
Authority. MI (V. 7-2-80) (Amado Garden**,
d/b/a Nashville Excavating Company) (MBE
efforts prior to bidding).
4. Newaygo County Board of PubBc Works,
MI (V, 7-21-80) (M. D. Taddie & Company.
Inc.) (discount applied to single contract).
S. Rochester. MN (V, 7-24-80) (Dwln ft
Armstrong. Ino: Kraus-AnderMn/PMW
Construction: Newberg. Foster ft Paschen;
Premier Electric Corporation) (MBE affect
prior to biddina).
8. Ne way gd County Board of Public Works.
MI (V. 7-28-60) (R. S. Bennett ft Company)
(prequalified equipment to comply with
specifications).
7. Ashley Valley. Sewer Management
Board. UT (VOL 11-20-*)) (Western Utility
Contractors. Inc) (difference between ait
price and extended total).
Defective IFB
1. Bend, OR (X, 5-15-79) (Industrial
Pump Sales Co.) [minimum project
requirements)
2. Cochran. GA (IV, 9-14-79) (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
3. Passaic Valley Sewerage ' '
Commissioners, NJ (n. 4-13-79)
(Pasaavant Corp.) t
Ambiguity I but see Bids: Mistake).
1. Amhersl. New York (11. 5-15-78) (Cimalo
Bros. Inc.)
2. Harrington. Illinois (V. 10-20-78) (Utility
4 Industrial Construction Co.) (method of
bidding: basis for contract award)
Ambiguity (but see Bids; Mistake).
1. Huntington. West Virginia (III. 4-
9-78) (National Engineering and Con-
tracting Co.; and Envirotech Corp.)
2. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sioners. Newark. New Jersey (II, 12-
10-77) (BSP Division of Envirotech
Corp.)
Defective
Defective IFB
1. Bend, OR (X 5-15-79) (Industrial
Pump Sales Co.) (minimum project
requirements)
2. Cochran, GA (IV. 9-14-79) (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
3. Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners. N] (IL 4-13-79)
(Passavant Corp.)
Defective Invitation for Bids (see a/no
Ambiguity: Specifications).
•1. Snxderville. Utah (V1I1. 4-17-78]
(Jacobsen Construction Co. Inc.]
Z. Washtenaw County. Michigan (V 7-13-
781 (Spence Bros.) (impossibiliu of
performance, unavailability of alti'rn.ite
ilisposnl Sill')
I U.ishm^ion Cuuniy Orcnon l.\ 7-.n-~H|
(North American Contrjclors Im. )
(dllcrndte.s)
4. Chester. South Carolina (IV. B-7-78)
(Preston Carroll Construction Co.| (multiple
low bidders)
-67-
-------
LICENSE
License
84:53 MSD of Greater Chicago. IL (V.
12-13-84) (Moretrench American
Corp.] (obtaining license is
responsibility matter permitting
award of contract before license
obtained).
License
83:05 Morton. MS (IV, 1-25-83)
(Associated Const., Inc.) (license
requirement affects responsibility not .
responsiveness).
License Requirement
82:33 Henderson, NV (IX. 6-22-82)
(Nielson. Vasko & Earl, Inc.) (state law
requiring license before bidding).
LISTING
SUBCONTRACTORS
Listing Requirement
84:01 Gwynns Falls, MD (HI. 1-13-84)
[Joseph L. Cardinale & Sons, Inc.]
(bid responsive where MBE goal not
satisfied by subcontractor).
84:06 City of Toronto, OH (IV, 2-2-84)
[/.L Cavanaugh Co.. Inc.] (not
responsiveness matter where
specification not intended to
prevent bid shopping).
84:10 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago. IL (V. 3-1-84)
[Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
(failure to submit letter of intent to
MBE subcontractor is not
responsiveness matter absent clear
IFB).
84:13 New Hampshire Water Supply &
Pollution Control NH (I, 3-28-84)
[Catamount Const., Inc.) (equipment
listing not matter of responsiveness
absent clear IFB).
84:15 Mattabassett Dist. Regional
Sewer Auth., Cromwell. CT (1, 4-12-
84) [Peabody N.E., Inc.) (listing
supplier is responsibility matter
absent clear IFB).
84:28 Libby, MT (Vffl, 8-9-84)
[Transamerican Contractors, Inc.)
(listing of manufacturers is
responsibility matter where IFB is
ambiguous).
Listing Subcontractor* and Equipment
83:13 Sandpoint, ID (X 3-3-83) (Lydig
Const., Co.) (required by state law)
(follow Part 35 determinations).
83:17 Patapsco, MD (ffl. 3-17-83) (/.
Vinton, Schafer & Sons, lac.) (failure
to list MBEs did not render bid
nonresponsive).
83:21 Chester, CT (L 4-7-63) (Maple
Hill Const., Co.) (subcontractor listing
not matter of responsiveness unless
clear IFB).
83:22 San Jose. CA (IX. 4-11-83)
(Johnson Controls, Inc.) (equipment
listing responsibility matter under Part
33 unless IFB clear to contrary).
83:26 Waynesburg [Stark County], OH
(V. 5-12-83) (Robert Bossow, Inc.) (bid
may be accepted and contractor
required to do substitution).
83:28 Des Moines, WA (X, 5-18-83)
(Will Const Co. Inc.) (listing MBE
subcontractor responsibility matter).
83:32 Los Angeles, CA (IX, 6-6-83)
(Advanco Constructors, Inc.) (bid not
deemed nonresponsive for listing
more than one subcontractor).
83:35 Pleasant Hill, IL (V, 6-10-83)
{State Mechanical Contractors,-Inc.)
(because bidder required to perform to
specifications and substitute
equipment if necessary, listing
nonconforming equipment is not
nonresponsive).
83:44 Streetsboro, Ravenna, OH (V, 7-
1-83) (Robert Bossow, Inc.)
(substitution of noncomplying
equipment) (listing errors not grounds
for rejection).
83:44 Streetsboro, Ravenna, OH
[Reconsideration] (V, 8-28-83) (Robert
Bossow, Inc.) (bid accepted and
contractor required to substitute
equipment).
83:49 MSD, Chicago, IL (V. 8-2-83)
(Door Systems of Elk Grove) (not
grounds for rejection where IFB
required listing) (listing to list MBEs).
83:51 Santa Barbara. CA (IX 8-15-83)
(Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
-68-
-------
MINORITY AND WOMEN'S
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
Minority and Women's Business
Enterprise (MBE/WBE)
84:01 Gwynns Falls. MD (III. 1-13-34)
[Joseph L Cardinale & Sons, Inc.)
(bid responsible though failed to
meet MBE requirements within 10
days as requiired by IFB).
84:06 City of Toronto. OH (TV. 2-2-84)
(f.L. Cavanaugh Co.. Inc.)
[ambiguity in specifications as to
time for meeting MBE goal renders
listing requirement matter of
responsibility) (unconditional
certification to comply with MBE
subcontracting makes bid
responsive even though all MBE
forms not completed).
84:16 Back River Waste Water
Treatment Plant. MD (III. 4-17-84)
(fames A. Federline, Inc. H.A.
Harris Co.) (where bidder required
to list and use certified MBEs bid
was responsive though MBE's not
certified until after bid opening).
84:41 City of Lancaster. PA (III. 10-16-
84) (Wyatt Const. Inc.)'(grantee
correctly determined bidder made
good faith efforts) (good faith effort
does not require bidder to negotiate
with subcontract offer or).
84:42 St. Paul MWCC, MN (V, 10-18-
84) (Hoffman Electric Co.) (grantee
may make compliance with MBE
requirements a matter of.
responsiveness but did not do so).
84:45 Arvin County, CA (IX, 11-2-84)
(Blois Const., Inc.) (not matter of
responsiveness where IFB did not
clearly so state).
84:49 Richgrove. CA (DC, 11-6-84) (El
Cam/no Const. Co.) (matters of
responsibility where although IFB
though attempted to make it
responsiveness requirement did not
clearly do so).
84:50 Richgrove. CA (IX. 11-8-84)
(W.M. Lyles Co.) (matters of
responsibility where although IFB
attempted to make it
responsiveness requirement did not
clearly do so).
Minority BusiiMM Enterprise (MBE)
(See Responsibility and Responsiveness
for Other Determinations}
83:08 Hamilton. MT (VHI. 2-8-83) (4G
Plumbing & Heating, Inc.) (positive
efforts satisfied by meeting goal)
(MBE rejected by prime for business
reasons not discriminatory motive).
83:14 MSD Chicago. EL (V. 3-4-83) (A
Rudnick & Co., Inc. & Namat Const.,
Co.) (prime receives MBE
subcontractor credit only for work
actually done by MBE) (where bid met
MBE goal on its face but MBE not
bonafide, evaluate contractor pre-bid
opening positive efforts).
83:17 Patapsco. MD (HI. 3-17-83) (/.
Vinton, Schafer & Sons, Inc.) (bidder
may demonstrate positive efforts until
contract award).
83:25 Onondaga County, NY (II, 5-9-
83) (Herbert F. Darling, Inc.)
(responsibility challenged where MBE
goal not met in bid and good faith
efforts not demonstrated) (post-bid
determination of good faith efforts
ripe for appeal when award
announced).
-69-
-------
MINORITY AND WOMEN'S
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (CONTINUED)
83:28 Waynesburg [Stark County], OH
(V, 5-12-83) (Robert Bossow, Inc.)
(ambiguous MBE requirements
requires reaolicitation due to effect on
competition).
83:28 Des Moines, WA (X 5-18-83)
(Witt Coast., Co., Inc.) (MBE
responsibility curable after bid
opening).
83:34 New Concord, OH (V, 6-10-83}
(Adams Robinson Enterprise, Inc.)
(where IFB unequivocally required
bidder state MBE offer, failure to do
so nonwaivable).
83:35 Pleasant Hill. IL (V, 8-10-83)
(State Mechanical Contractors, Inc.)
(documentation of positive efforts
made bid responsive though no MBE
participation proposed).
83:46 Palatine. IL (V. 7-19-83) (Di
Paolo-Rossetti. Joint Venture) (IFB
made self certification affidavit and 20
day advertising matters of
responsiveness).
83:49 MSD. Chicago, IL (V, 8-2-83)
(Door Systems of Elk Grove) (MBE
subcontractor listing not material to
bid).
83:64 Los Angeles. CA (IX 11-25-83)
(C K Pump &• Dewatering Corp.)
(ambiguous MBE requirements cause
to reject all bids).
Minority Business Enterprises (see also
Responsibility and Responsiveness
81:04 Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District, CA (IX. 1-27-81) (D.W. Young
Const.) (MBE share in joint venture).
81:12 California SWRCB, CA (IX 2-
26-81) (Navas Pipe Supply and Hydro
Conduit Co.) (middleman MBE, no
commercially useful function).
81:27 Black Diamond. WA (X, 4-21-
81) (Bowen Const.) (failure to meet goal
or show positive efforts) (remanded for
bidder to show efforts).
81:32 Black Diamond. WA (X. 4-29-
81) (Bowen Const.) (need not segregate
supply and construction components to
determine compliance with twin MBE
goals).
81:37 Crescenta Valley County. CA
(IX. 5-18-81) (J.C. Plumbing Co.) (failure
to demonstrate positive efforts).
81:45 San Francisco. CA (IX, 6-15-
81) (Hydro Conduit Co.) (MBE firms not
required to demonstrate social or
economic disadvantage resulting from
discrimination).
81:48 San Francisco. CA (IX. 6-15-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractors
and Suppliers) (must be clearly defined
role for MBE in joint venture).
81:55 Centerville. IA (VH. 7-21-81)
(Grady Unlimited) (policy establishes no
right to subcontract) (maximum positive
efforts not required).
81:59 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission. OR (X, 7-30-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const, and Assoc.)
(MBE subcontractors listing, curable
after bid opening).
81:72 Sun Valley. NV (IX. 8-21-81)
(Hydro Conduit Co.) (protest premature
because contractor not yet designated
MBE).
81:78 Chicago MSD. IL (V, 9-18-81)
(S.A. Healy Co.. et al.} (commercially
useful function) (minority control).
81:87 Cridersville, OH (V. 10-16-81)
(Miami Valley Contractors) (omission of
MBE guidance from IFB).
81:90 Chicago MSD. IL (V, 10-27-81)
(S.A. Healy. et al.} (reconsideration of
81:76) (ambiguous MBE requirements).
81:93 Marengo, IN (V, 11-3-810)
(E.H. Hughes Co.) (lack of State
assistance no excuse for lack of positive
efforts).
81:96 Tallahassee. FL (TV. 11-10-81)
(GS&L Mechanical Const, and Assoc.
Minority Contractors) (MBE association
may challenge MBE compliance on
behalf of members) (failure to meet MBE
goal requires examination of positive
efforts).
82:29 Syracuse, NY (II, 5-18-82) (Bat-
Con, Inc.) (withholding payments to
contractor for failure to meet MBE
requirements not protestable).
82:36 Williamstown. MI (V. 6-28-82)
(Barnhart & Son) (pre-bid positive
efforts documentation).
82:52 Gwynn Falls, MD (HI, 9-14-82)
(RJ. Longo Const.) (meet goal or
demonstrate positive efforts).
82:68 Atwood. OH (V. 12-1-82)
(Munitech) (failure to provide MBE
documentation).
-70-
-------
MINORITY AND WOMEN'S
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (CONTINUED)
Minority Business Enterprise
1. DefCalb County. CA (TV. 2-29-80)
(Southeast Grading. Inc.) (good faith
negotiations).
2. Hastings. NE (VTL 3-7-80) (Horizon
Construction Company: Olson Construction
Company) (falure to list MBE subs is
curable).
3. Johnson County. KS (VU. 4-1-80) (Sharp
Brothers Contracting Company) (failure to list
MBE subs is curable).
4. Huntsville. TX (VL 4-18-80) (Angleton
General Mechanical Inc.) (failure to furnish
documentation of positive efforts is curable).
5. Burlingame. CA (DC 4-25-80) (Pat
Kennelly Construction Company) (failure to
contact assistance center can be waived).
8. Soldotna. AK (X 4-25-80) (Interstate
Company) (failure to file MBE for with bid is
curable).
7. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
Authority. MI (V. 7-2-80) (Amado Cardenas,
d.b.a. Nashville Excavating Company)
(specifications ambiguous in requiring
positive efforts orior to bidding).
8. Rochester. MN (V. 7-24-80) (Darin &
Armstrong. Inc.: Kraus-Anderson/PMW
Construction; Newberg. Poster & Pascherc
Premier Electric Construction) (specifications
ambiguous in requiring positive efforts prior
to bidding).
9. Toledo. OH (V. 7-28-dO) (Minority Earth
Movers. Inc.) (MBE policy does not extend to
WBE).
10. Rockford. MI (V. 8-1-80) (Nagel
Construction. lac; Interstate Pip*
Maintenance. Inc,' Qytus Industrie*. Inc.)
(timeliness).
11. Albert Lea, MN (V, 9-18-80) (Orvedahl
Construction, bit; Centennial Coatraeton
Corp.: Johnson Brothers Corp.) (Grantee caa
make responsiveness dependent on pre-bid
positive efforts).
12. San Jacinto River Authority
[Woodlands). TX (VL 10-3-80) (Industrial
Contractors. Inc.) (goal attainment or posittv*
efforts go to responsibility).
13. Nashville. MI (V. 10-24-80) (dark
Construction: Company) (grantee can make
MBE data a matter of mpoasiveoesa).
14. Webster. TX (VI10-31-80) (LEM
Construction Company, toe.) (positive
efforts).
15. DuPage County (Department of Publk
Works). 0. (V, 12-15-80) (Paschea
Contractors. Inc.) (positive efforts).
18. Pierce County. WA (X. 12-23-80) (Frank
Coluccio Construction Company) (MBE
documentation as responsibility factor).
17. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority.
OR (X.12-24-80) (Aualand Construction, Inc.)
(post-bid efforts to meet MBE goals].
18. Clear Lake City. TX (VL 12-29-80) (LEM
Construction Co., Inc) (MBE documentation
is responsibility factor).
Minority Business Enterprise
1. Burlingame. CA [IX, 12-20-79) (D. W.
Young Construction Co.)
2. Danville. TCf (IV, 10-28-79) (Andrews
Enterprises Inc.)
*3. Decarur. AL (IV, 7-23-79)
(International Electric Co.) (good faith
efforts)
•4. Detroit MI (V. 12-11-79) (Dynamic
Construction Co.)
5. Meriden, CT (1.10-4-79) (Carter
Construction Co.)
6. Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago. IL (V, 8-16-79)
(Troesch Trucking, Inc.)
7. Miami—Dade Water and Sewer
Authority. FL (IV, 4-30-79) (Cobo Co.)
8. Monterey County. CA (IX 2-28-79)
(Monterey Construction Surveys, Inc.)
*9. Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside, CA
(DC. 7-23-79; errata (9-21-79)) (Radco
Construction, Inc.)
10. West County Agency, CA (DC, 6-28-
79KR. D. Smith)
Minority* Business Enterprise (i 35.936-7. and
FPP the EPA minority business enterprise
policy at 43 FR 60220-24. December 26.1978)
(but see Equal Employment Opportunity],
•1. Knoxville. Tennessee (IV. 2-8-78) (Roy
F. Weston Inc.) (A/E procurement)
2. East Bay Discharges Authority.
California (IX. 2-15-78) (R. D. Smith)
*3. Chicago (Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago). Illinois (V. 3-12-78)
(Howard Martin Construction) (local
procedures and requirements)
4. Atwater. California (IX, 4-26-78)
(Warren C. T. Wong & Assoc.) (A/E
procurement)
5. San Francisco. California (IX. 8-9-78)
|SI,ittery Assoc.. Fischbach and Moore Inc.
and Mornson-Knudson Co., joint venture)
(local requirements)
Mistake (but see Ambiguity: Evaluation of
tiuls. Formal Advertising}.
•1. New York City. New York (II. 1-12-78)
|S( hiavone Construction Co ) (bidder's intent
1,-sl)
2 Kitsap County. Washington (X. 2-3-78)
I Will Construction Company. Inc ) (patent
'•rror in addition of line items correction)
3 Onond.ic.i County. N'rw York (II. 8-23-
701 {IVzrigiilli Construction Co. and John \V
("UprrCo Im ) (st.md.ird of rr\ icu bidder
mti-nt test: use of extrinsic evidence)
4 Onondaga County. New York—
Supplement (II. 9-7-78) (Pizzagalli
Construction Co. 4 John W. Cowper Co. Inc.)
-71-
-------
NEGOTIATED
PROCUREMENT
Negotiated Procurement
83:04 Globe. AZ [Reconsideration] (IX.
_ 4-11-83) (Brown Er CaldweU) (prices
and identities of proposers publicly
disclosed) (right to revise proposal)
(essential to have clear statement of
evaluation criteria and method).
Negotiated Procurement
81:38 Indianapolis. IN (V, 5-27-81)
(American Digital Systems) (not
required in procurement of SSES
contractor).
Negotiated Procurement (§§ 35.936-18 and
'"> l*37-5) (and see Enforcement).
\ Chester. South Carolina (IV. 8-7-78)
il'ieston Carroll Construction Co.) (use of. on
84:18 Town of Milford. MA (I. 4-20-84]
(Euramca Ecosystems, Inc.]
(proposal rationally rejected where
its specifications did not comply
with prequalification information
package).
84:36 Austin. TX (VI. 9-6-«4) (Olson
Const., Inc.) (failure to list pre-
approved manufacturer did not
render bid non-responsive where
manufacturer satisfied
specifications) (lengthly discussion
of theory of prequalification).
84:37 Lewistown. MT (VIII. 9-27-84)
(Process Equipment Co.) (to
successfully challenge rejection
protester burden to show
specification unduly restrictive or
that equipment satisfied the
specifications and rejection is
unreasonable).
Prequalification
83:02 Columbus. OH (V. 1-12-63)
(Cobsy Metro—Waste Composting
Systems, Inc.) (time between
notification of prequaliScaticn and
bid opening is discretionary) (supplier
not entitled to "marketing" time).
83:23 Jerseyville, IL (V. 4-14-83) (Clow
Carp.) (not required to seek
prequalification before protesting
unduly restrictive specifications).
83:82 Wayne. NB (VII. 10-31-83)
(Envirex. Inc.) (specifications
interpreted restrictlvely caused
rejection of prequalified supplier).
83:68 Tri-City, OR (X 12-9-83)
(Dresser Industries, Inc.) (failure to
timely submit equipment information).
PREQUALIFICATION
Prequalification
81:13 Atlanta. GA (IV, 3-5-61) (R.J.
Longo Const.) (bidder's responsibility
for assuring receipt of prequalification
package) (general contractor) (one year
between prequalification and bidding
not per se restrictive).
81:22 Conrallis. OR (X. 4-10-61)
(Environmental Pollution Control. Lac.)
(bid must conform to all elements of
specifications even if lists prequalified
equipment).
81:23 Tifton. GA (IV. 4-13-31) (Astor
Bolden Enterprises and Municipal &
Industrial Pipe Serv.) (only permissible
for selection of major equipment items
in situations of public exigency).
PATENTS
Patents
1. Ma con-Bibb County Water and
Sewage Authority, GA (IV. 3-16-79)
(Sbirco, Inc.)
Patents (§ | 30.500 et seq.. 35.9O8. 35.936-3 and
35.936-13).
1. Onondaga County. New York (II. 6-30-
78) (Zimpro. Inc.)
Prequalification
84:04 Livingston Parish. LA (VI. 1-27-
84) (Parson & Sanderson. Inc.) (must
result in final evaluation of
equipment before bid opening).
84:16 Back River Waste Water
Treatment Plant. MD (III. 4-17-84)
(fames A. Federline. Inc., H.A.
Harris Co.] (Financial
prequalification is responsibility
matter grantee must consider all
available information up until
contract award).
-72-
-------
PREQUALIFICATION
(CONTINUED)
81:47 Jasonville, IN (V, 6-30-81)
(Hinde Engineering Co.) (grantee
representation created de facto
prequalification. not conclusive
responsiveness determination).
81:62 Cobb County. GA (IV. 8-11-81)
(American Bioreactor Corp./BAY*) (must
conform to PRM 79-10 and requirement
must be justified).
81:83 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (III, 10-13-61) (R&M Assoc.) (single
manufacturer prequalified on open
specifications is not sole source
procurement) (reversed by
reconsideration 82:02).
81:106 Gower, MO (VH. 12-29-61)
(Empire Generator) (clarification of
submittals).
82:02 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (IU. 1-22-82) (R4M Assoc.) (grantee
cannot reject bid as nonresponsive for
failure to list prequalified supplier
unless IFB so clearly states)
(reconsideration of 81:83).
82:12^ Channelview, TX (VI, 3-8-62)
(Euramca Ecosystems) (must allow 30
days for submitting data).
82:14 Atlanta, GA (IV, 3-15-82)
' (Ruby Collins, Inc. and John D.
Stephens) (prequalified joint venture
cannot change its component entities
and be awarded the contract).
82:19 Mount Pleasant, SC (IV, 3-31-
82) (Bird Machine Co.) (description of
major item sufficient without describing
ancillary items).
82:37 Cullman, AL (IV, 7-6-82) (Cal
Co.; Encore Co.; and Drew and Assoc.)
(30 days for submitting equipment data).
82:49 Dumas, AR (VI, 9-7-62) (Hinde
Engineering) (notification procedures).
82:56 Macon-Bibb County. GA (IV,
10-26-82) (Charles Finch Co.) (time for
submitting presubmittals).
82:57 Cape May County MUA. NJ (II.
11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Co. And
Fairfield Service Co.] (decision not to
pre-qualify processes as "or equal").
Praqu
1. Fall River. MA (L 2-8-80) (Perfo
Systems, Inc4 (sludge Biter press).
2. Orange County Sanitation Districts at
Orange County. CA (DC. S-22-40) (Ralph a
Carter Co.; Euramca. Inc.; Komline-Sandenon
Engineering Corp.) (belt filter press).
3. Newaygo County Board of Public Works.
MI (V. 7-za-80).(R. S. Bennett & Company)
(pumps).
Prequalification (§§ 35.936-3 and 35.936-13)
(see EPA Report to Congress. Waste Water
Treatment Contracting and Bid Shopping.
Section IV. D. which discusses certain
minimum principles to insure competition, the
criterion to any acceptable prequalification
system).
1. Cynthiana. Kentucky (IV. 2-9-78) (James
N. Gray Construction Co.)
2. Webster. Iowa (VII. 2-10-78)
(Environmental Systems Division of George
A. Hormel 4 Co. Inc.)
Prequalification
*1. Atlanta, GA (IV, 3-21-79) (Fruin-
Conlon Corp.)
*2. Aurora Sanitary District IL (V, 7-3-
79) (Ralph B. Carter Co.)
3. Decatur, AL (IV, 3-2-79) (Johnson
Controls, Inc.)
4. Macon-Bibb County Water and
Sewage Authority, GA (IV, 3-16-79)
(Shirco, Inc.)
3. Fairfax County. Virj>mi.i (III. 3-17-78)
(|ohn W. Cowpcr Co Inc.)
*4 Front Royal. Virginia (III. 4-21-78)
(Lyco-Zf) (procedures: failure to comply with
prequalification procedures, failure to be
listed as equivalent)
5. Miami-Dade Water and Sower Authority.
Florida (IV. 5-18-78) (F.nuro Development
Co. and Poole & Kent Co.)
•6. Ml, Olive. North Carolina (IV. 5-18-78)
(Lyco-Zf) (time for ddla presentation must be
clear)
7. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Charlottesville. Virginia (III. 11-2-78)
(National Hydro Systems) (descriptive
literature)
-73-
-------
PROGRAM INTEGRITY
Program Integrity (§30.245).
•1. Daytona Beach, Florida (IV. 6-
21-77) (Hydro-Clear Corp.)
Rational Basis Test.
1. Hannibal. Missouri (VII. 2-15-74)
(Sammons Construction Co.)
2. Omaha. Nebraska (VII. 9-14-74)
.Daumaster Div.—ACCO)
3. Gainesville-Alachua • • • Board,
Florida (IV. 7-10-75) (Grumman Eco-
systems Corp.)
4. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Au-
thority, Florida (IV, 3-11-76) (George
Hyman Construction Co.)
5. Ruston, Louisiana (VI. 3-18-76)
(Allan H. Harris Co.)
6. Lowell. Massachusetts (I. 4-1-76)
(United Electrical Contractors)
7. Lowell, Massachusetts (I. 4-2-76—
(Honeywell Corp.)
8. Phoenix. New York (II. 5-7-76)
(Vincent J. Fasano)
9. Chatham County (Isle of Hope).
Georgia (IV, 7-8-76) (Kyle-Gifford-
Hill Inc.)
10. Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester,
South Carolina (IV. 7-19-76) (§208
grant) (Davis & Floyd Engineers Inc.)
11. Sacramento, California (IX, 8-
12-76) (BBR Prestressed Tanks)
12. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Au-
thority. Florida (IV. 9-27-76) (Altman-
Mvers Construction Co.)
•13. Concord. North Carolina (IV,
10-8-76) (Mercury Construction Co.)
14. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(Northeast Plant) (III, 12-6-76) (Sov-
ereign Construction Company)
15. Bradford. Vermont (I, 3-4-77)
(Cummings)
•16. Dothan, Alabama (IV, 3-10-77)
(Infilco Degremont)
17. Pasadena. Texas (VI, 4-1-77)
(Union Carbide Corp.)
18. Sussex. Wisconsin (V. 4-14-77)
(FivlxT & Porter)
ift Rhode Island Statewide Planning
Program (I, 4-26-77) (§208 grant)
-------
REJECTION OF ALL BIDS
Rejection of AH Bids
84:03 Town of Williston, VT (1.1-25-
84) (Cooley Corp.] (where only one
bid was responsive grantee may
reject all bids if price
unreasonable).
84:15 Mattabassett Oist. Regional
Sewer Auth., Cromwell. CT (1,4-12-
84) (Peabody N.E.. Inc.) (ambiguity
in bid evaluation method and
responsiveness affected
competition).
84:24 City of Leominister. MA (I, 6-11-
84) (P. Gioioso & Sons. Inc.] (grantee
lacked good cause and was
reversed by EPA) (potential
ambiguity in specifications did not
affect competition) (not per se
• justified because only one of
several bidders was responsive).
Rejection of All Bids
83:07 Oklahoma City. OK (VI. 2-4-83)
(DJ- Domas. lac.) (all bids may be
rejected if in best interest to EPA and
grantee).
«3:22 San. Jose. CA (IX 4-11-83)
{Johnson Controls, Inc.) (protestable
procurement action) (must be good
cause, PRM 73-3 example of good
cause).
83:28 Waynesburg (Stark Countyj, OH
(V. 5-12-831 (Robert Bossow, Inc.)
(ambiguous MBE requirements).
83:60 Tri-City. OR (X10-20-33)
(Donald M. Drcka Co.) (not good
cause for rejection where prejudicial
ambiguity].
33:64 Los Angeles, CA (DC. 11-25-83}
(CKPump S'Dewctenng Carp.)
(ambiguity in, MBE requirements).
Rejection of All Bids
81:14 Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
Sewer Authority, PR (II, 3-6-81)
(Spearin. Preston & Burrows, and
Conduit and Foundation Corp., Joint
Venture) (work divided into two
contracts and readvertiaed).
81:22 Corvallis, OR (X 4-10-S1)
(Environmental Pollution Control, Inc.)
(ambiguous specification).
81:30 Portage. IN (V, 4-28-81)
(Associated Mechanical Services) (MBE
requirements ambiguous).
81:53 Timmonsville. SC (IV. 7-17-81)
(Quality Sanitary Services) (inaccurate
quantity estimates).
81:71 Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District. CA (IX. 8-21-81) (D.W. Young
Const.) (litigation not good cause).
81:73 Valparaiso. IN (V. 8-28-81) (H.
DeWulf Mechanical Contractor) (MBE
requirements ambiguous).
81:82 Batesville, IN (V, 10-7-81)
(Bowen Engineering) (MBE requirements
ambigous).
81:95 Fowlerville. MI (V, 11-9-81)
(Normco Const.) (no evidence of good
cause).
82:01 Bowling Green. OH (V, 1-12-
82) (DCK Contracting) (good cause
defined).
82:11 CarmeL IN (V, 3-3-82) (E.H.
Hughes Co.) (rejection where bids
unreasonable in light of cost estimates).
82:15 Philadelphia/PA (111, 3-16-82}
(Williard, Inc.) (justified if ambiguity
prejudiced bidders). ~
82:22 Goldendale. WA (X 4-16-81)
(IMCO General Const.} (justified by
inconsistencies in bidding documents).
82:40 Whitestone, NY (II. 7-26-82)
(F.G. Compagni Const.) (IFB stating
inaccurate quantities).
82:70 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X 12-
22-82) (Robert Dougan Const.) (rejection
of all bids because equipment not
meeting specifications did satisfy
performance requiements).
-75-
-------
REJECTION OF ALL BIDS (CONTINUED,
Rejection of AH Bid*
1. St Petersburg. FL (IV. 1-10-80)
(Municipal and Industrial Pipe Service*. Ltd.)
(Grantee'* financial situation, limit federal
than).
2. Anne Arundel County. MD (ffl. 2-13-80}
(Sabatini Company) (specifications
restrictive).
3. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
Authority, MI (V. 7-&-40) (Amado Cardenas.
d.b.a. Nashville Excavating Company) (RA
directed, ambiguous MBE specifications).
4. Newaygo County Board of Public Works,
MI (V. 7-21-80) (M.O. Taddie 4 Company.
Inc.) (no adverse effect of bid form
ambiguity).
5. Rochester. MN (V. 7-24-80) (Darin 4
Armstrong, Inc.; Kraus-Anderson/PMW
Construction: Newberg, Foster ft Psschen:
Premier Electric Construction) (RA directed,
ambiguous MBE specifications).
& Newaygo County Bord of Public Works,
MI (V, 7-28-80) (R.S. Bennett ft Company)
(RA directed, ambiguous MBE specifications).
Rejection of All Bids
1. Albuquerque. MM (VI, 2-2-79) (Kent
Nowlin Construction Co.)
2. Bardstown, KY (IV, 5-24-79) (E. H.
Hughes Co. (II))
3. Bend, OR (X 5-15-79) (Industrial
Pump Sales Co.) (RA directed,
, defective IFB)
4. Detroit, MT.(V, 6-29-79) (C. J. Rogers
Constructors, et al., A Joint Venture)
(local share lacking)
5. Suffolk County. NY (H. 9-15-79)
(Spencer, White & Prentis, Inc. and
Seatec International, Ltd., A Joint
Venture)
6. Wheeling, WV (IH. 2-16-79) (Manning
Environmental Corp; and
Sugmamotor, Inc.)-(change in
grantee's ndeds)
7. Greenup County, KY (IV, 11-13-79)
(W. Rogers Co.) (cannot fund non-
federal share)
Rejection of All Bids {| 35 93S-^(h)(2). and
stv PRM 78-fl. published at 43 FR 14725-26.
April 7,1978) (see also Enforcement].
1 RivHtina Water and Sewer Authority.
Churlotlesville. Virginia (HI. 5-25-7B)
(Ndlional Hydro Systems. Inc.] (no good bids
a I reasonable prices)
'2. Bay City. Michigan (V. 6-28-78)
(Greenfield Construction Co.) (contract 10 D)
3. Chester. South Carolina (IV. 8-7-78)
(Preslon Carroll Construction Co.) (EPA
directed)
'4. Onondaga County. New York (II. 8-23-
78) (PizzHgnlli Construction Company and
John W. Cooper)
5. Bay County. Michigan (V. 9-1-78) (Roese
Contracting Co., Inc.) (contract Nos. 3 and 7)
6. Onondaga County. New York—
Supplement (H. 9-7-78) (Pizzagalli
Construction Co. and John W. Cowper Co.
Inc.)
7. Portage. Michigan (V, 12-20-78)
(lacobelli Construction Inc.)
Rejection of All Bids (§35.938-4(h)(2),
and see. PRM 78-8 published at 43
FR 14725-26, April 7, 1978) (also
see. Enforcement).
I. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
(Southwest Plant) (III. 2-28-75) (EEO)
(Air Products
-------
RESPONSIBILITY
Responsibility
84:01 Gwynns Falls, MD (III, 1-13-84)
(Joseph L Cardinale & Sons, Inc.)
(MBE requirements).
84:06 City of Toronto. OH (IV, 2-2-84)
(J.L Cavanaugh Co., Inc.) (MBE
requirements).
84:07 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago. IL (V, 2-6-«4) (A./.
Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind. Inc., and
Klein Const. Co.] (grantee broad
discretion in making affirmative
finding) (submittal of forms
including percent of work force are
responsibility matter absent clear
IFB).
84:10 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago, IL (V, 3-1-84)
(Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
(allegation that bidder cannot meet
specification is responsibility/
contract administration matter).
84:13 New Hampshire Water Supply &
Pollution Control. NH (I. 3-28-84)
(Catamount Const., Inc.)
(Catamount Const., Inc.) (where
language in different parts of IFB/
bid documents gives different
meaning to listing requirement, it is
responsibility matter).
84:15 Mattabassett Oist. Regional
Sewer Auth.. Cromwell. CT (I. 4-12-
84) (Peabody N.E., Inc.) (where
language requiring listing is clear in
one part of IFB but different in
another, it is matter of
responsibility).
84:18 Back River Waste Water
Treatment Plant, MD (III. 4-17-64)
(James A. Federline. lnc.,JI.A.
Harris Co.) (financial
prequalification).
84:28 Riverton, WY (VIII, 7-13-84)
(Martel Const. Co., Inc.) (where IFB
did not make manufacturer's letter
of approval a responsiveness
matter, engineer may evaluate
whether item offered meets projects
needs) (descriptive literature
requirement).
84:28 Libby, MT (VIII, 8-9-84)
(Transamerican Contractors, Inc.)
(proof of authority of agent
submitting bid] (listing of
manufacturers).
84:31 Trumbull County, OH (V, 8-24-
84) (R & K. Constructors, Inc.) (poor
past performance is rational basis
for grantee finding bidder
nonresponsible) (grantee in best
position to determine
responsibility).
84:34 Glens Falls. NY (II. 8-30-84)
(Dorr-Oliver. Inc.) (deference to
affirmative finding of responsibility
based on technical evaluation)
(communications between grantee
and bidder after bid opening
concerning responsibility are
permissible).
84:36 Austin. TX (VI. 9-6-84) (Olson
Const., Inc.) (prime contractors
rather than grantees usually
determine subcontractor
responsibility and in this IFB
grantee did not reserve right to
make determination).
84:42 St. Paul MWCC, MN (V, 10-18-
84) (Hoffman Electric Co.)
(deference to grantee determination
that bidder was responsible based
on good faith MBE effects).
84:45 Arvin County. CA (IX, 11-2-84)
(B/ois Const, Inc) (failure of bidder
to submit MBE information within
10 days after bid opening did not
cause it to be nonresponsible
because responsibility can be
demonstrated anytime before
award).
84:49 Richgrove, CA (IX. 11-8-84) (El
Camino Const. Co.) (MBE
requirements not made
responsiveness matters even though
IFB attempted to do so).
84:50 Richgrove. CA (IX 11-8-84)
(W.M. Lyles Co.) (MBE
requirements not made
responsiveness matter even though
IFB attempted to do so).
Responsibility
83:02 Columbus. OH (V. 1-12-831
(Cobey Metro- Waste Caaiposting
Systems, Inc.) (inadequate
experience).
83:05' Morton, MS (TV, 1-25-83)
(Associated Const, tec.) tfallure to
obtain license).
83:10 Needles. CA (IX. 2-10-83)
[Hefley Bras., Carp.) (afSrsiativs
determination not reversed by EPA
unless fraud, bad faith or violation of
objective standards of responsibility).
83:14 MSD Chicago, IL (V, 3-t-8C) (R.
Rudnidt & Ca.. Inc. S> h'cmat CjxsL.
Co.) (contractor must demonstrate
positive efforts if it fails to meet MBE
goal) (EPA may reverse affimative
determination if grantee fails to
consider all relevant information).
-77-
-------
RESPONSIBILITY .CONTINUED,
83.17 Fatapscc. MD (III, 3-17-33} 'J.
Vinton. Schafer £• Sens. Inc.] (failure
to attach MBE documentation)
(positive efforts nay be cared anytime
before contract award).
83:23 Des Moir.es. WA (X. 5-18-83)
(Will ConsU Co* Inc.) (MBE form
incomplete).
83:42 Eastern Avenue Baltimore, MD
(V, 8-28-83) (Allied Contractors. Inc.)
(MBE requirements can be met by
satisfying goal or shewing goodJaith.
efforts).
83:45 Casper. WY (Vffl. 7-3-33)
(Shavmee Const, Inc.) (MBE
requirements).
83:49 MSB. Chicago. IL (V, 8-2-63)
(Door Systems of Elk Grove) (MBE'
subcontractor listing).
83:50 Detroit. M! fV. 8-2-33) (Dynamic
Const.. Co.. Inc.] (M3E requirements-
positive efforts demonstrated after bid
opening)
83:52 Berkeley, CA (DC, 8-13-83) (Gerl
Const. Co.) (MBE requirements).
83:53 New Haven. CT (L 8-19-83)
(Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc.)
(local affirmative action agreement).
Responsibility
81:03 Pierce County, WA (X, 1-14-
81) (Frank Coluccio Const.) (MBE
requirements).
81:04 Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District, CA (IX, 1-27-81) (D.W. Young
Const.) (MBE requirements—failure to
demonstrate positive efforts).
81:19 Phoenix, AZ (IX. 3-27-81)
(TGK Const & M.M. Sundt Const)
(unacceptable subcontractor did not
make prime non-responsible).
81:20 Tupelo, MS (IV, 4-7-81) (Jesco,
Inc.) (equipment listing requirement)
(substitute more expensive equipment if
listed equipment unsatisfactory).
81:27 Black Diamond, WA (X, 4-21-
81) (Bowen Const.) MBE goals not met,
requires examination of positive efforts).
81:31 Gildford County Sewer
District MI (Vffl. 4-28-81) (Baltrush
Const) (MBE requirements).
81:32 Black Diamond, WA (X, 4-29-
81) (Bowen Cosnt.) MBE responsibility
shown by positive efforts).
81:37 Crescenta Valley County, CA
(DC. 5-18-81) (J.C. Plumbing Co., &
Channel Const.) (MBE requirements-
failure to demonstrate positive efforts).
81:38 Indianapolis. IN (V, 5-27-81)
(American Digital Systems) (deference
to grantee responsibility determination).
8~1:49 Los Angeles County, CA (DC 7-
1-81) (Dresser Industries) (performance
shows capability to meet obligations).
81:50 Kalida, OH (V, 7-2-81)
(Sherbum Co.) (submission of catalog
cuts and equipment guarantee).
81:59 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission. OR (X, 7-20-
81) (Hyland Brothers Const.) (failure to
list MBE subcontractors).
81:60 East Troy. WI (V. 7-31-81)
(Joseph Lorenz) (MBE requirements).
81:71 Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District CA (DC. 8-21-81) D.W. Young
Const) (failure to comply with (MBE
requirements).
81:75 New Castle. IN (V. 9-9-81) (Joe
R. Norman Contractor) (financial
standing, performance bond).
81:76 Chicago MSD. IL (V, 9-18-81)
(S.A. Healy. et al.) (MBE requirements
remain a matter of responsibility despite
IFB's attempt to make it
responsiveness).
81:77 Carrboro, NC (IV. 9-23-81)
(Clevepak Corp.) (deference to
affirmative determination of
responsibility unless fraud, bad faith or
evidence that specific objective
standards violated).
81:82 Batesville, IN (V, 10-7-81)
(Bowen Engineering) [subcontractor
listing).
81:90 Chicago MSD, EL (V. 10-27-81)
(S.A. Healy, et a/) (MBE requirements).
81:95 Fowlerville. MI (V, 11-9-61)
(Normco Const.) (MBE requirements).
81:96 Tallahassee. FL (IV. 11-10-81)
(GS&L Mechanical Const.: Assoc. of
Minority Contractors) (MBE
requirements).
81:101 Chicago MSD. IL (V. 12-16-81)
(Walsh Const.) (EEO forms).
81:103 Atlanta. GA (IV. 12-18—81)
(Rocco Ferrera ft Co.) (MBE
requirements).
82:03 Fort Wayne, IN (V, 1-25-82)
(Bates & Rogers Const.) (fiscal integrity
requirements).
82:04 Westport. SD (Vin. 2-3-82)
(H.F. Jacobs and Sons) (MBE
requirements, EEO Certification,
nonsegregated facilities certificate).
82:08 Santa Fe. MM (VL 2-18-82)
(Mesa Grande) (MBE documentation).
82:21 Fallbrook Sanitary District, CA
(DC, 4-6-82) (Metro—Young/Lopez
Const, A Joint Venture) (MBE
requirements).
82:25 PerryviUe, MD (IE, 4-28-82) (J.
Vinton Schafer & Sons) (MBE
requirements).
82:28 Gwynn Falls Relief
Interceptors (in. 5-7-82) (R.J. Longo and
B&B Tunnelling Contractors) (MBE
requirements).
-78-
-------
RESPONSIBILITY (CONTZNUED,
82:33 Henderson. NV (IX. 6-22-82)
(Nielsen. Vasko & Earl. Inc.] (MBE
requirements and possession of work
license).
82:41 Abilene. TX (VI. 7-27-82) (R&S
Engineering) (contractors right to rebut
allegations of prior inadequate
performance).
82:49 Dumas. AR (VI. 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering) (supplier's right to rebut
allegations of prior inadequate
performance).
82:52 Gwynn Falls. MD (III. 9-14-82)
(R.J. Longo Const.) (MBE requirements).
82:61 El Dorado. KS (VU. 11-18-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const.) (rebuttal
opportunity).
82:82 Statesville. NC (IV. 11-17-82)
(DPS Contractors) (contrasted
responsiveness) (bid documentation and
certifications submittal).
82:64 Shady Spring PSD. WV (HI. 11-
22-82] (Davis Water & Waste Industries
(MBE requirements).
Responsibility (see also Responsiveness)
1. HuntsviUe, TX (VL 7-8-80) (Angleton
General Mechanical Inc.) (prior
performance).
2. Webster. TX (VL 10-31-80) (LEM
Construction Company. Inc.) (positive MBE
efforts).
Responsibility
1. Bardstown, KY (TV, 1-3-79) (E. H.
Hughes Co. (!}] ._ :
2. Barnstable, MA (1,8-24-79)
(Chemcon, Inc.)
3. Burlingame, CA (DC, 12-20-79) (D. W.
Young Construction Co.) (failure to
complete MBE form)
4. Caldwell. ID (X, 11-1-79) (Neilsen &
Co.) (licenses)
* 5. Cleveland Regional Sewer District,
OH (V, 9-18-79) (Passavant Corp.)
(failure to complete local EEO form)
6. Detroit, MI (V, 12-11-79) (Dynamic
Construction Co.)
7. James Island Public Service District
SC (IV, 5-2-79) (Pyramid Builders,
Inc.)
8. Skagit County, WA (X, 5-4-79)
(Glantz Supply, Jnc.)
Responsibility (§} 35.936-15 and 30 340-2).
1. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority.
Florida (IV, 1-13-78) (Continental
Consolidated Corp.) (licensing)
2. Knoxville. Tennessee (IV. 2-«-78) (Roy F.
Weston. Inc.) (A/E procurement: fraud and
corrupt practices)
3. Fairfax County. Virginia (III. 3-17-78)
(John W. Cowper Co. Inc.) (subcontractor
listing)
*4. San Francisco. California (IX. 8-9-78)
(Slattery Assoc., Fischbach and Moore Inc.
and Morrison-Knudsen Co.. joint venture) (vs.
responsiveness—compliance with local
minority business enterprise requirements)
5. Bay County, Michigan (V, 8-11-78)
(Frank V. Louis Equipment Co.) (Contract No.
1) (addendum acknowledgment—minor
informality)
8. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 9-20-7H)
(Passavant Corp.)
7. Niagni County. S«wer District (No. 1).
Now York (II. 10-18-78) (Environment Onp
Corporation) (v. responsiveness: U. I.
certification and building codes)
Responsibility (§§ 35.936-15, 30.340-2).
(A) General:
•1. Hannibal. Missouri (VII. 2-15-74)
(procedural requirements) (Sammons
Construction)
•2. Hollywood. Florida (IV. 3-13-74)
(parent-subsidiary relationship) (Mor-
gan ti-South, Inc.)
3. Lexington. Virginia (III. 8-14-74)
(of equipment supplier standards)
(Hydro-Systems. Inc.)
•4. Upper Occoquan Sewer Authori-
ty (Manassas Park), Virginia (III. 11-
13-75) (descriptive literature; vs. re-
sponsibility) (John C. Grimberg Co..
Inc.)
•5. Phoenix. New York (II, 5-7-76)
(grantee burden of proof) (Vincent J.
Fasano, Inc.)
6. Round Hill, Virginia (III. 5-13-76)
(subcontract information; past prac-
tices) (Frank L. Black, Jr.. Inc.)
•7. Upper Occoquan Sewer Authori-
ty (Manassas Park). Virginia (III, 6-
24-76) (subcontractor listing require-
ment; vs. responsibility) (Savoy Con-
struction Co.)
8. Kansas City, Kansas (VII. 11-17-
77) (applicable standards to subcon-
tract award) (Nichols Engineering &
Research; and Zimpro Inc.)
9. Pepperell. Massachusetts (I, 11-
22-77) (grantee judgment; past prac-
tices) (Catamount Corp.)
(B) Licensing:
•I. Jacksonville. Florida (IV, 8-12-
74) (State construction industry board
license) (Adrian Construction Co.)
•2. Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation
Agency. California (IX, 8-21-75) (State
landscaping license) (Jos. Ramos and
Contri-Hood)
-79-
-------
RESPONSIVENESS
Responsiveness
84:09 City of Los Cruches, NM (VI. 2-
27-84) (Mass Transfer. Inc.] (bid
offering item requiring substantial
redesign of project is
nonresponsive).
84:10 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago, IL [V, 3-1-84)
(Premier Electrical Const. Co.)
(forms and certifications not
affecting PQQD are not
responsiveness matters absent clear
IFB).
84:12 Town of Grantsville, MD (III, 3-
20-84) (Mattingly Const., Inc.)
(responsiveness must be determined
at bid opening and cannot be
waived by grantee permitting
adjustment to comply with
specifications).
84:16 Back River Waste Water
Treatment Plant, MD (III. 4-17-84)
(fames A. Federiine. Inc.. H.A.
Harris Co.] (bid promising t'o meet
good faith efforts) {good faith effort
does not require bidder to negotiate
with subcontract offer or).
84:42 St. Paul MWCC. MN (V, 10-18-
84) (Hoffman Electric Co.) (grantee
may make compliance with MBE
requirements a matter of
responsiveness but did not do so).
84:45 Arvin County, CA (IX. 11-2-84)
(Blois Const., Inc.) (not matter of
responsiveness where IFB did not
clearly so state).
84:49 Richgrove. CA (IX. 11-8-84) (El
Camino Const. Co.) (matters of
responsibility where although IFB
though attempted to make it
responsiveness requirement did not
clearly do so).
84:50 Richgrove. CA (IX 11-8-84)
(W.M. Lyles Co.) (matters of
responsibility where although IFB
attempted to make it
responsiveness requirement did not
clearly do so).
Responsiveness
83:01 Spearfish, SD (Vm. 1-11-83)
(Rickel Manufacturing Co.] (pump not
capable of meeting specified cubic
feet per minute is nonresponsive).
83:09 Covington. GA (TV. 2-0-43)
(Griffin Const* Co., »Ethridge
Brothers Const., Inc.) (bid signing,
bidder identity and bid bonds).
83:10 Needles, CA (DC. 2-10-83)
(Hefley Bros., Corp.) (principal bid not
rendered nonresponsive by failure to
hid on alternate).
83:13 Sandpoint. ID (X, 3-3-63) (Lydig
Const Co.] (subcontractor listing).
83:15 Union City, OH (V. 3-8-83) (Mote
Const, Co.] (separate bids required
for two related projects with different
IFBs).
83:19 Oklahoma City. OK (VI 3-25-83]
(Envirex. Inc.] (bid nonresponsive due
to qualifications to liquidated
damages, time and warranty clauses).
83:21 Chester. CT fj. 4-7-83) (Maple
Hill Const, Co.] (unsigned bid
responsive where accompanied by
signed bid bond) (addenda not
submitted but written
acknowledgement-prior to bid
opening).
83:22 San Jose, CA (DC. 4-11-83)
(Johnson Controls, Inc.) (equipment
listing requirement not matter of
responsiveness under Part 33)
(nonconfonning equipment did not
make bid nonresponsive where
grantee can require substitution).
83:34 New Concord. OH (V. 6-10-83)
(Adam* Robinson Enterprise, Inc.)
(MBE forms and information) (where
addendum not acknowledged bid
nonresponsive).
83:35 PleasantHiUlLfV.0-10-43)
(State Mechanical Contractors, Inc.}
(MBE documentation satisfied) (bid
listing nonconfonning equipment is
responsive; substitution permitted).
83:44 Streetsboro, Ravenna, OH (V, 7-
1-83) (Robert Bossow, Inc.] (bid listing
nonconforming equipment u
responsive substitution permitted).
83:46 Palatine. EL (V, 7-19-83) (Di
Paolo-Rossetti, Joint Venture) (MBE
information and 20 day advertising
required by IFB cannot be waived as
immaterial) (self certification
affidavits).
83:50 Detroit, MI (V, 8-2-63) [Dynamic
Const, Co., Inc.) (acknowledged bid
addendum but did not adhi t bid).
83:51 Santa Barbara, CA (DC 8-15-83)
(Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
Co.] (material technical and
commercial terms cannot be waived)
(bid cannot be clarified after bid
opening).
-80-
-------
RESPONSIVENESS (CONTINUED,
83:58 Los Angeles. CA (IX. 9-30-33)
(Bailey Controls Co.] (exception to
contract conditions and bid bond
amount nonresponsive).
83:69 Conroe. TX (VI. 12-13-63) (Jf.VC.
Inc.] (inclusion of extraneous
information in bid OK where bid
terms not qualified).
83:70 Contra Costa. CA (DC. 12-15-33)
(PerJtut—EIaier) (principal bid not
rendered nonresponsive by submittal
of uninvited alternate).
Responsiveness
81:06 Oceanside. CA (DC. 1-30-81)
(Bird Machine Co.) (unacceptable
subcontractor listed).
81:15 Myrtle Beach, SC (IV, 3-13-81)
(Paul N. Howard Co.) (omission of unit
prices) (oral questions and answers
concerning IFB unreliable).
81:18 Clermont County Sewer
District EL (V. 3-16-61) (Glenn Rhoades
Const.) (MBE requirements).
81:19 Phoenix, AZ (DC. 3-27-61)
(TGK Const. & M.M. Sundt Const.)
(unacceptable supplier listing).
81:20 Tupelo. MS (IV, 4-7-81) (Jesco,.
Inc.) (failure to satisfy IFB listing
requirements did not affect
responsiveness).
81:22 Corvallis, OR (X. 4-10-81)
(Environmental Pollution Control, Inc.)
(grantee's right to require equipment
substitution does not permit waiver of
nonresponsive equipment offer).
81:24 El Dorado Irrigation District.
CA (DC 4-13-61] (Lotus Const.) (failure
to acknowledge addenda waived as
minor defect).
81:30 Tomah, WI (V. 4-10-81) (W.G.
Jaques) (MBE requirements).
81:38 Indianapolis; IN (V. 5-27-81)
(American Digital Systems) (deference
to technical judgment of grantee).
81:46 San Francisco, CA (IX, 8-15-
81) (Alliance of Minority Contractors
and Suppliers) (MBE requirements).
81:50 Kalida. OH (V, 7-2-81)
(Sherbum Co.) (failure to list unit
prices).
81:51 Lynchburg. OH (V. 7-2-61)
(Dow Const.) (failure to list unit prices).
81:65 South Lyon. MI (V, 8-27-61)
(DCK Contracting (MBE requirements).
81:78 Chicago MSD. IL (V, 9-18-81)
(S.A. Healy, et al.) (MBE requirements).
81:85 Sacramento. CA (DC, 10-14-81)
(Dredge Masters International) (failure
to submit equipment description]
(exception to payment terms).
81:90 Chicago MSD. IL (V. 10-27-61)
(S.A. Healy, et al.) (MBE requirements).
81:93 Marengo, IN (V, 11-3-81) (E.H.
Hughes) (MBE requirements).
81:95 Fowlerville. MI (V, 11-9-61)
(Normco Const.) (EEO requirements).
81:97 Elmhurst, EL (V, 11-12-81)
(Miller-Davis) (MBE requirements).
81:106 Gower. MO (VII. 12-29-81)
(Empire Generator] (deviation from
warranty requirement).
81:107 Colchester, CT (L12-31-61)
(Clark Sewer Const.) (failure to bid on
alternate).
82:01 Bowling Green OH (V, 1-12-82)
(DCK Contracting) (MBE requirements).
82:22 Goldendale, WA (X 4-16-82)
(IMCO General Const.) (failure to list
subcontractors or suppliers).
82:27 Eveleth, MN (V. 5-3-62)
(Gridor Const.) (MBE requirements).
82:31 Menominee, MI (V, 6-6-62)
(Krygoski Const.) (conditional bid).
82:35 Van Buren County, MI (V, 6-
28-82) (Union Const.) (bid responsive
despite failure to acknowledge
addendum).
82:36 Williamstown, Ml (V, 8-28-62)
(Barnhart ft Son) (MBE requirements].
82:45 Pasadena, TX (VL 9-17-82)
(Parkson) ("better" equipment than
specified must meet design
specifications).
82:87 Cullman, AL frV.11-30-62)
(Cal Corp.; Encore Corp. and Drew and
Assoc.) (bidder able to comply with
solicitation requirements need not offer
equipment listed in solicitation).
a&68 Atwood, OH (V, 12-1-62)
(Munitech).
82:69 Globe, AZ (DC. 12-8-62]
(Mercury Const.) (addendum must be
included with bid).
Responsiveness
1. Norwich. CT (I.2-1-80) (Fantoni
. Company) (authority to sign bid, bid bond not
signed by principal).
Z Halting*. NE (Vm. 3-7-80) (Horizon
Construction Company: Olson Construction
Company) (bidder cannot offer different '
warranty).
3. fohnson County. KS (VU 4-1-80) (Sharp
Brothers Contracting Company) (MBE sob
listing).
4. Tacoma. WA (X. 4-3-80) (Worthington
Pump Corporation) (pump dimensions
differing from specifications).
5. Glennville. GA (TV. 4-t-*» (J.W.
Meadors and Company) (discount offer, sub
listing).
-81-
-------
RESPONSIVENESS (CONTINUED)
8, Huntoville. TX (VL 4-l»-31) (Angleton
General Mechanical Inc.) (MBE
documentation of positive efforts).
7. Seldom*. AK (X 4-2S-*)) (Interstate
Company) (MBE documentation).
8. Northwest Bergen County Sewer
Authority, N] (0.5-5-60) (R.J. Longo
Construction Co.) (failure to Identify type of
pipe to be used).
9. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
District CA (DC. 5-9-W) (Burdick
Contractors. Inc.) (acceptance of part of
combination bid).
10. Branford. CT (L 5-2&-80) (CM.
Nickenon & Co.) (zero unit price, identical
price for alternatives).
11. Clarksville, TN (IV. 8-5-80) (Penetryn
Systems, Inc.) (compliance with
specifications).
12. Port Austin Area Water and Sewer
Authority. MI (V. 7-2-80) (Amado Cardenas.
d.b.a- Nashville Excavating Company) (MBE
sub listing).
13. Newaygo County Board of Public
Works. MI (V. 7-21-80) (M.D. Taddie ft
Company, Inc.) (discount offer).
14. Rochester. MN (V. 7-24-80) (Darin &
Armstrong. Inc.; Kraus-Anderson/PMW
Construction: Newberg. Poster ft Paschen:
Premier Electric Construction) (MBE sub
listing).
15. Newaygo County Board of Public
Works, MI (V, 7-28-40) (R-S. Bennett ft
Company) (prequalified equipment not
meeting specifications, efficiency guarantee).
10. Rockford. MI (V. 8-1-80) (Nagd
Construction, Ino; Interstate Pipe
Maintenance, Inc.: Clytus Industries, Inc.)
(MBE documentation).
17. Cecil County, MD (H 8-11-80) (Hanks
Contracting, Inc.) (need for bid bond).
18. Monmouth. OR (X 8-21-80) (Chinook
Pacific Corporation) (conditional bid. limiting
bid acceptance time).
19. Coifax Public Service District WV (QL
8-29-80) (Salerno Brothers, Inc.) (failure to
acknowledge addendum).
20. Alma. NE (VOL 9-4-80) {William
Anderson Company. Inc.) (bid of "free" for
bid item).
21. Albert Lea. MN (V. 9-18-80) (Orvedahl
Construction, Inc^ Centennial Contractors
Corp.: Johnson Brothers. Corp.) (MBE
documentation).
22. San Jacinto-River Authority
[Woodlands), TX (VL 10-1-80) (Industrial
Contractors, inc.) (failure to attain MBE goal).
23. Nashville. MI (V. 10-24-80) (Clark
Construction Company) (MBE
documentation).
24. DuPage County [Department of Public
Works], 0. (V, 12-15-80) (Paschen
Contractors. Inc.) (MBE documentation).
25. Pierce County, WA (X 12-23-80) (Frank
Coluccio Construction Company) (MBE sub
listing).
26. dear Lake City. TX (VL 12-29-80) (LEM
Construction Co.. Inc.) (MBE documentation).
Responsiveness
1. Alpine Sanitary District AZ (IX, 9-28-
79) (Gus's Trenching and Pipeline Co.)
2. Bardstown, KY (IV, 1-3-79) (E. H.
Hughes Co. (I))
3. CaldweU, ID (X, 11-1-79) (Neilsen and
Co.)
4. Chattanooga, TN (IV, 3-27-79)
(Perfonnance Systems, Inc.).
5. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
OH (V, 8-14-79) (Water Pollution
Control Corp.)
* 6. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
OH (V. 9-18-79) (Passavant Corp.)
(qualified bid)
7. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
OH-Reconsideration (V. 10-18-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.) (Per
Norton Co.)
8. Cochran, GA (IV, 9-14-79) (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
9. Detroit MI (V, 12-11-79) (Pollutec,
Inc., and Glenn E. Wash Associates, A
.' Joint Venture) (exception to IFB)
10. Detroit, MI (V, 12-11-79) (Dynamic
Construction Co.) (bid bond)
11. East Bay Dischargers Authority, CA
(DC, 11-16-79) (Brantley Instruments)
(Contra Costa Electric, Inc.)
(exception to IFB)
12. Hannibal MO (VII, 6-7-79) (U.S.
Envirp-Con Inc.) (rejection of
unapproved equipment)
13. Jackson. CA (DC. 7-5-79) (Joseph R.
Ramos Pipeline Engineering) (waiver
of mistake; failure to acknowledge
addendum)
14. James Island Public Service District,
SC (TV, 5-2-79) (Pyramid Builders,
Inc.)
* 15. Kansas City, MO (VH, 12-20-79)
(Carney Companies) (exception to
IFB)
16. Meriden, CT (1,10-10-79] (Standard
Engineers and Constructors, Inc.)
(failure to file EEO certificate)
* 17. Mt Pleasant MI (V, 6-25-79)
(Collavino Brothers Construction Co.)
(subcontractor listing)
18. Portage, MI (V, 12-31-79) (Tom
Robinson & Son, Inc.]
19. Skagit County, WA (X. 5-4-79)
(Glantz Supply, Inc.) (EEO
certificates)
Responsiveness [see O/M> Ki/uul Empk>\ inuitt
Opportunity: Waiver).
\ Gainesville. Georgia (IV. 11-7-78)
(National Hydro Systems. Inc. and Tiitlli-/
White Constructrrs) (subion'.rcu tur listing)
2 Kits.ip County. VV,i-.h:rv;lnn (X '. 1-7H]
(\\ill Construction Company. Int. )
[i-i|uipment listing—matter of ru.spuiibiliiliiv)
3. Cynthiuna. Kentucky (iv. 2-9-78) (|
-------
RESPONSIVENESS 'CONTINUED.
4. West Bend. Wisconsin (V. 3-3-7«|
(Oliver Construction Co. Inc..) (subcontractor
listing; bid bond as m
-------
SMALL BUSINESS
Small Business—Procurement of |5 35.93f>-71
'1. Mounuinlop. Pennsylvania (III, 1-5-7tt|
(National Hydro Systems. Inc.)
2. Marshfield, Wisconsin (V, 6-10-7(1]
(Empire Generator Corporation)
3. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 9-20-78)
(I'Hssavanl Corp.)
Small Business—Procurement of
<§ 35.936-7).
•1. Cleveland Regional Sewer Dis-
trict. (Southerly Plant) Ohio (V, 11-
15-76) (Powercon Corp.)
2. Bernice. Louisiana (VI, 6-1-77)
(National Hydro Systems)
-84-
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
General
Brand Name or Equal
Specifications
A. General
83:39 Philadelphia, PA (HI, 6-22-63)
[Fisher & Porter Co.] (must not include
requirements unrelated to minimum
performance needs).
83:48 Heber Spring, AR (VL 8-2-83)
(Trigon Engineering Co.] (operation
and maintenance costs of equipment).
83:70 Contra Costa. CA (DC, 12-16-83)
[Perkin—Elmer) (bidder could not rely
on oral interpretation of specifications
when IFB required they be in writing).
Specifications
A. General
81:08 Morgantown. WV (III. 2-1-81)
(Clow Co.) (prior EPA approval does not
bar review).
81:53 Timmonsville, SC (IV, 7-17-81)
(Quality Sanitary Services) (bidder .
reliance on quantities approximated in
IFB).
82:08 Tangier. VA (III. 2-11-82)
(Ultraviolet Purification Systems) (brand
name or equal-identify salient
requirement and how related to
minimum needs).
82:07 Chattanooga, TN (IV. 2-18-82)
(Spencer Turbine Co.) (basic design
decision to utilize existing structure not
protestable).
82:37 Cullman, AL (IV, 7-6-82) (Cal
Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew and
Assoc.) (IFB must clearly explain
information to be submitted and method
of award).
82:57 Cape May County MUA, NJ (H
11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Co. and
Fairfield Service Co.) (basic project
design not met when "or equal"
proposal fails to meet key features).
Specifications (.but see Non-Restrictive
Specifications; see also. Engineer-
ing Judgments).
1. Omaha, Nebraska (VII. 9-14-74)
(unbalanced bid) (Datamaster Div.—
ACCO)
2. Gainesville-Alachua * * * Board,
Florida (IV, 7-10-75) (ambiguity; bid
notation; addenda) (Grumman Ecosys-
tems)
3. Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission, Maryland (III. 10-15-75)
(Volpe Construction Co., and John C.
Grimberg Inc.)
A. Brand Name or Equal
84:04 Livingston Parish, LA (VI. 1-27-
84) [Parson & Sanderson, Inc.]
(specification defective because
salient feature not present in named
brand) (superior equipment differing
in design from named features in
nonresponsive—EPA required new
specifications conforming to
mininum needs). -
84:35 Portage Sanitary Bd.. Portage, IN
(V,-8-31-84) (Gariup Const. Co.,
Inc.) (evaluation of "or equal"
occurs after bid opening) (rejection
of equipment on "or equal" basis
must be for performance reasons
not physical differences).
B. Brand Name or Equal
83:23 Jerseyville, IL (V, 4-14-83) [Clow
Corp.] (used as disguised sole source)
(can only be used if rational basis for
not stating technical requirements)
(must state salient features).
Competition
B. Competition
84:19 Clinton County, NY (H, 4-30-84)
[Compost Systems Co.) (no undue
restriction where supplier obligated
by specifications for performance
guarantee in amount of total bid
price).
Design
C. Design
84:21 Ardmore, OK (VI. 5-4-64) [LYCO
and Walker Process Corp.) (in
procuring off-the-shelf equipment,
design specifications can only be
used where specific features
required for particular application)
(design catalog specifications must
be avoided if possible).
Defective
Water and Sewer Authority.
Honda (IV. 4-2&-T8) (Intercounty
Construction Co. and Mor(janti-South. Inc.-
Uulff K Mumer, a joint venture) (defective)
-85-
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
General
4. Westchester County, New York
(II, 9-7-76) (minimum needs; competi-
tion) (Union Carbide Corp.)
5. Bergen County, New Jersey (II, 9-
28-76) (words-numbers reconciliation)
(Wm. L. Crow Construction Co.-Wolff
& Munier, Inc.—Joint Venture)
•6. North Shore Sanitary District, Il-
linois (V, 9-28-76) (salient perform-
ance characteristics) (Keene Corp.;
and Premier Electrical Construction
Co.)
7. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(Northeast Plant) (III. 12-6-76) (un-
balanced bid) (Sovereign Construction
Co.)
Local Preference
D. Local Preference
84:05 City of New York, NY (E 2-2-84)
(Schiavone Const. Co. & Worth
Engineering. Inc., A faint Venture]
(requirement that corporation be
51% owned by licensed plumbers
• unduly restrictive).
Local Preference
83:29 Fargo, ND (VIH, 5-18-83) (Van
Bergen & Markson, Inc.; The Gray
Engineering Group, Inc. &
Conservatek, Inc.) (procedures or
practices creating preference
prohibited).
Local Preference
License Requirement
82:33 Henderson. NV (DC. 6-22-82)
(Nielson. Vasko & Earl. Inc.) (state law
requiring license before bidding).
Minimum Need
E. Minimum Need
84:04 Livingston Parish, LA (VI, 1-27-
84) (Parson & Sanderson, Inc.)
(where equipment superior to
design specifications satisfies
minimum needs, specifications must
be revised).
Nonrestrictive
(See also -
UNDULY RESTRICTIVE)
84:10 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicago, IL (V, 3-1-84)
(Premier Electrical Const. Co.]
(where protester alleges he can
meet the specifications, he cannot
challenge restrictions).
84:10 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist of
Greater Chicago, IL
[Reconsideration] (V, 3-1-84)
(Premier Electrical Const. Co.] (if
protester wants specifications
reviewed by EPA it must submit
them with appeal).
- 84:18 Town of Milford, MA (I.4-20-84)
(Eufamca Ecosystems, Inc.)
(performance based specifications
not unduly restrictive where
equipment offered would not fit in
building). /,
84:19 Clintori'County, NY (II, 4-30-84)
(Compost Systems Co.] (requiring
performance'quarantee from
supplier for liquidated damages in
amount of its bid price is not unduly
restrictive).-
84:20 City of Decorah, IA (VII, 5-1-84)
(Humboldt Wedag) (supplier cannot
challenge specifications when he
claims he can meet them) (high
standard of proof where asserting
restrictive application of
specifications).
84:21 -Ardmore, OK (VI, 5-4-84) (LYCO
and Walker Process Corp.) (catalog
design specification unduly
restrictive) (performance
specifications required).
84:23 Erie County, NY (II, 5-10-84)
(Vianini Pipe Inc.) (where
specifications using national
standard for concrete pipe
eliminated protester's method of
processing it was not unduly
restrictive because sufficient
competition of suppliers meeting
specifications). f
84:48 Athens, AL (IV, 11-6-84)
(Polymer Chemical Corp.) (sole
source grout unduly restricted
competition beyond the minimum
needs of pr&ject).
84:47 Reelfoot Lake, TN (IV, 11-6-84)
(Carlon, Inc.) (requiring specific
PVC pipe exceeding minimum needs
of project is unduly restrictive).
-86-
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
Nonrestrictive (CONTINUED)
Noomtricdv* SfMdficatfc
1. Cordale. GA (IV. 1-1S-80) (Tattle/White
Constructor*. Inc.) (manufacturer* only).
2. East Bay Dischargers Authority. CA (DC
1-30-80) (Capital Control Company)
(rejection of equipment).
1 Whitebait NY (IL t-S-80) (Davis Water
& Waste Industrie*, Inc.) (pump lack* salient
feature).
4. Fall River. MA (L2-13-*)) (Pasuvant
Corporation) (manufacturers only).
5. Anne Arundel County. MD (10. 2-13-80)
(Sabatini Company) (pipe).
6. Tolleson, AZ (IX 3-17-80) (Hydro
Conduit Corporation) (pipe).
7. Cordele. GA (IV. 4-10-80) (Ralph Healey
& Associates. Inc.) (manufacturers only).
B. Puyallup, WA (X 4-24-80) (Rodding—
Cleaning Machine*. Inc.) (performance
requirement).
9. Little Rock. AR (VI4-29-80) (AutotroJ
Corporation) (performance specifications).
10. Cordele. GA (IV. 5-1-80) (Franklin
Aluminum Division/Hoover Universal, toe.)
(protester has burden of proof).
11. Northwest Bergen County Sewer
Authority, N] (IL 5-5-80) (New Holland
Newcnte Products Division of New
Enterprise Stone ft Lime Co.) (nr **"»»!
standards).
12. Claricsville. TN (IV, 8-*-*» (Penetryn
Systems. Inc.) (single grout material).
13. Checotah, OK (VL 8-18-80) (Sherman
Machine and Iron Works. Inc.) (performance
needs).
14. County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County. CA (DC. 8-28-80) (Ingenofl-
Rand Co.) (cost effectiveness, equipment Bf*)i
15. Richmond VA (TO. 7-1-40} (Una
Construction Company; Clevepak
Corporation) (performance requirements).
18. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
OH (V. 10-14-80) (Id Americas, Inc.) (singi*
material).
Nonrestrictive Specifications
1. Aurora Sanitary District, DL (V, 7-3-
79) (Ralph B. Carter Co.)
(prequalification of suppliers)
2. Batesville, AR (VI, 1-12-79) (Hinde
- Engineering Co.)
3. Chattanooga. TN (IV, 3-27-79)
(Performance Systems, Inc.]
4. Cochran, GA (IV, 9-14-79] (Municipal
and Industrial Pipe Services, Ltd.)
*5. Decatur, AL (IV, 3-2-79) (Johnson
Controls, Inc.) (manufacturers only)
6. Gainesville, GA (IV. 11-5-79)
(National Hydro Systems, Inc.) (IE)
(application of specifications)
7. Glenbard Wastewater Authority, IL
(V, 4-6-79) (USEMCO, Inc.)
*8. Laurens County. SC (IV, 7-10-79)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co. et al.)
(pipe)
9. Middletown. DE (ffl. 9-17-79) (Mt. Joy
Construction Co.) (rejection of pre-
appraved supplier)
Non-Restrictive Specifications (§ 35.936-13,
|si.-e a/so Engineering Judgments: Salient
Requirements] (but see Experience
Requirements: Sole Source Specifications:
Specifications).
1. Webster. Iowa (VII. 2-10-78)
(Environmental Systems Division of George
A. Hormel & Co. Inc.)
2. Turlock. California (IX. 3-6-78) (Riga
Inc.)
3. Wells. Maine (I. 3-17-78) (Purcell Pump)
4. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-21-78) (Autotrol)
.(sdlienl performance requirements)
•5. Chester. South Carolina (IV. 3-29-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (single material
pipe selection]
'6. Cumberland County. New Jersey (U. 3-
11-78) (Dorr-Oliver Inc.) (post-contracl
interpretation: ultimately nonconforming
prerfpproved equipmenl)
7. Snyderville. Utah (VIM. 4-17-78)
(l.icousen Construction Co. Inc.) (prices of
subiicms)
8. New Smyrna Beach. Florida (IV. 4-18-78)
(Carl E. Widell & Son)
9. Clayton County. Georgia (IV. 4-19-78)
(National Hydro System Inc.. et al.)
10. Front Royal. Virginia (HI. 4-21-78)
(Lyco-Zf) (prequalification)
11. Newton. North Carolina (IV. 4-25-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (pipe selection
limitation to three materials)
12. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 5-19-78)
(Mulholland Construction Co.) (prime protest
on rejection of its proposed subconstractor)
'13. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
(Westerly Plant). Ohio (V. 6-14-78)
(McLaughhn & Associates) (salient
performance requirements)
14. Marshfield. Wisconsin (V. 6-16-78)
(Empire Generator Corporation)
*15. Urbana-Champaign. Illinois (V. 6-30-
78) (Paddock Refimte) (stale exemption, as
creating)
*16. Prince William County. Viriginia (111,
8-4-78) (Spencer Turbine Co.) (equivalency
determination: salient requirements)
17. Oklahoma City. Oklahoma (VI, 8-25-78)
(Automatic Engineering Inc.) (as applied:
specifications drafted around single
manufacturer)
-87-
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
Nonrestrictive
(CONTINUED)
18. Winchester. New Hampshire (I. 9-1-78)
(Enviro Development Co. Inc.)
19. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 9-20-78)
(Passavant Corp.)
20. Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners. New Jersey (11.10-5-78) (BSP
Division of Envirotech Corp. and Wheatloy
Corp )
21. Indianapolis. Indiana (V. 10-6-78) (FMC
Corp )
22 Brrcsr Illinois (V. 10-18-78) (Midwest
Soil Products and Djvco-Di'fiant o) (busi1
bidding)
23. Frankfort. Kentucky (IV. 10-18-78)
(Passavant) (performance-related
requirements as limitation)
24 Fairfield. New Jersey (II. 10-20-78) (Loc
Pump) (or equal: specification generally
drafted around single manufacturer)
25 Indiannpohs. Indiana (V. 10-31-78)
(Albs-Chdlmers)
'26. Chattanooga. Tennessee (IV. 11-2-78)
(Philadelphia Gear) (functional equivalency:
experience)
27. Urbana-Champaign. Illinois (V. 11-9-78)
(Norton Co.) (performance criteria)
28. Waterford. Connecticut (1.11-17-78)
(Purcell Pump) (as applied)
1. Shreveport, Louisiana (VI. 6-1-74)
(pipe liner) (Mainstay Corp.)
2. Hudson. Wyoming (VIII. 8-1-74)
(Environmental Equipment Inc.)
3. Grand Forks.North Dakota (VIII,
8-15-74) (Komline-Sanderson)
•4. Lake Charles, Louisiana (VI, 12-
15-74) (Flygt Co.*
5. District of Columbia (Blue Plains)
(III. 2-20-75) (Kenics Corp.)
6. Tonawanda, New York (II, 8-1-75)
(Ingersoll-Rand)
7. Butler County (LeSourdsville
Project), Ohio (V, 1-7-76) (grantee
pre-approval) (EPCO—Hormel)
8. Fredonia. New York (II, 4-15-76)
(Tenco Hydro/Aerosciences)
•9. Chatham County (Isle of Hope),
Georgia (IV, 7-8-76) (pipe) (Kyle-Gif-
ford-Hlll Inc.)
10. Sioux City, Iowa (VII, 3-12-76)
(U.S. Enviro-Con)
11. Sacramento, California (IX, 8-
12-76) (BBR Prestressed Tanks Inc.)
12. Sacramento, California (IX, 9-
13-76) (Amoco Reinforced Plastics)
13. North Shore Sanitary District, Il-
linois (V. 9-28-76) (Keene Corp.; and
Premier Electrical Construction Co.)
•14. Greenwood (Rocky-Coronaca),
South Carolina (IV. 10-6-76) (pipe;
clay v. concrete) (Metromount Materi-
als: Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.; Wal-
lace Concrete Pipe Co., Inc.; South
Carolina Pipe Association; Amoco Re-
inforced Plastics Co.)
15. Sacramento. California (IX. 10-
6-76) (Air Products & Chemicals Inc.
II)
16. Palm Beach County, Florida (IV,
10-8-76) (pipe; sole source) (Price
Brothers)
17. Baton Rouge. Louisiana (VI, 11-
5-76) (National Hydro-System)
18. Cleveland Regional Sewer Dis-
trict (Southerly Plant) (V. 11-15-16)
(Powercon Corp.)
19. Superior, Wisconsin (V, 12-1-76)
(Acton Construction Co. Inc.)
20. Waterford. Connecticut (1.12-28-
76) (New Ikor I)
21. Fredonia, New York (II. 2-28-77)
(National Hydro Systems)
22. Waterford, Connecticut (I, 3-9-
77) (Loc Pump St. Equipment Co.)
23. Dothan. Alabama (IV. 3-10-77)
(shop drawing evaluation) (Lnfilco-De-
gremont)
24. Sioux City. Iowa (VII. 3-17-77)
(Ralph B. Carter Inc.; and UJS. Enviro-
Con Inc.)
25. Pasadena. Texas (VI. 4-1-77)
(Union Carbide Corp.)
26. Delano. California (IX, 4-8-77)
(pipe) (Hydro Conduit Corp. and Cen-
Vi-Ro Concrete Pipe & Products Co..
Inc.)
27. Fairfax. Virginia (III, 4-14-77)
(Concrete Pipe & Products Inc.)
28. Montgomery. Alabama (IV, 5-11-
77) (Envirotech)
29. Marion. North Carolina (IV, 5-
17-77) (pipe) (Carolina Concrete Pipe
Co.)
30. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (VI,
5-18-77) (Ingersoll-Rund I)
31. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority, Florida (IV. 5-25-77)
(grantee approval) (Morganti South-
Wolff Munier (Joint Venture); and In-
tercounty Construction Corp.)
32. Bernice. Louisiana (VI, 6-1-77)
(National Hydro Systems)
33. Watertown. New York (II. 7-5-
77) ("or equal." grantee review) (Vin-
cent J. Fasano)
34. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (VI.
7-13-77) (Ingersoll-Rand II)
35. Norwalk. Connecticut (I, 7-22-77)
(Primiano Construction Co.)
36. Cynthiana, Kentucky (pre-selec-
tion) (IV. 8-11-77) (Lyco-ZF)
37. Jackson. Mississippi (IV, 8-19-77)
(pipe) (American Cast Iron Pipe Co.)
38. Hope. Arkansas (VI. 9-1-77)
(Hydro Conduit; Choctaw Culvert
(Div. of Choctaw Inc.); Jonesboro Con-
crete Pipe Co.)
39. Toms Brook-Maurertown, Virgin-
ia (III. 9-20-77) (pre-selection) (Na-
tional Hydro Systems)
40. Cranberry Township. Pennsylva-
nia (III. 10-20-77) (pre-selection) (Bay-
Con Corp.)
41 Contra Costa County, California
(IX. 10-25-77) (pipe) (Armco Steel)
42. Orange County, California (IX,
11-2-77) (Pentech Division of Hou-
daille Industries)
43. Kansas City, Kansas (VII, 11-17-
77) (experience) (Nichols Engineering
& Research Corp.; and Zimpro)
44. Amherst. New York (II, 11-22-77)
(Smith & Associates)
-88-
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
Performance Based Salient Requirements
G. Performance Based
\
84:04 Livingston Parish, LA (VI, 1-27-
84) (Parson & Sanderson, Inc.)
(specification must be revised to
remove unnecessary specified
features of brand name).
84:08 Western Carolina Regional
Sewer Authority, Greeijyille> SC tlV,
2-17-84) (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley)
(engineer to establish minimum
performance specifications for
equipment—purpose is to compare
machine capability and not
necessarily configuration).
84:21 Ardmore, OK (VI, 5-4-84) (LYCO
and Walker Process Corp.)
(equipment specifications must be
performance based using qualitative
terms rather than design
specifications).
84:35 Portage Sanitary Bd., Portage, IN
(V, 8-31-84) (Gariup Const. Co..
Inc.) (rejection of equipment on "or
equal" basis must be for
performance reasons and not
physical differences).
84:47 Reelfoot Lake, TN (IV, 11-6-84)
[Carlon, Inc.) (engineer to establish
minimum performance needs and
write performance specifications to
reflect minimum needs) (purpose of
performance specifications is to
compare operational levels of
various equipment that may have
different physical configurations).
H. Salient Requirements
84:27 Metropolitan Sewer Dist.,
Cincinncati. OH (V, 7-16-84)
(Parkson Corp.) (where
specification includes only technical
and performance requirements and
is not brand name or equal
specification, all specifications are
meaningful terms that must be met).
Salient Requirement!
81:43 Honolulu. HI (IX, 6-11-81)
(Hawaii Concrete Products) (vertical
cast pipe vs. centrifugal cast pipe).
81:58 Ashland, KY (IV. 7-27-81)
(Fairbanks Mores Pump] (speculative
maintenance problem not salient).
81:69 Houma. LA (VI 8-19-61)
(Hydromatic Pump) (recirculation port
size) (speculative maintenance problems
not salient).
81:79 Ashland, KY (TV. 10-1-81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (maintenance
cost).
82:06 Tangier, VA (m. 2-11-82)
(Ultraviolet Purification Systems)
(minimum performance needs).
82:34 Monterey, CA (IX, 6-24-82)
(Frank M. Booth, Inc.) (minimum
performance needs for brand names).
82:37 Cullman. AL (IV, 7-6-82) (Cal
Corp.; Encore Corp. and Drew and
Assoc.) (based on mechanical reliability
and maintenance considerations)
(design features enhancing safety and
efficiency).
82:41 Abilene, TXfVI. 7-27-82) (R&S
Engineering) (manufacturers only—
unrelated to performance).
82:46 Spearfish, SD (Vffl. 8-19-82)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.]
(drawn around single named brand).
82:49 Dumas. AR (VI, 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering] (unidentified).
82:50 Eaton, OH (V, 9-14-82)
(WagneY Machinery) (unidentified).
82:53 Monterey, CA (DC, 9-29-82)
(Frank M. Booth. Inc.) (longevity in
service).
82:55 Haysville. KS (VII. 10-13-62)
(Walker Process) (on-site maintenance).
82:16 El Dorado. KS (VII. 11-16-62)
(Oursler Brothers Const.) (chain vs.
cable).
-89-
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
Salient Requirements
(CONTINUED)-
Salient Requirements
1. Cordele. GA (TV, 1-15-80) fTuttle/White
Constructors. Inc.) (manufacturers only not
performance related).
2. East Bay Discharger* Authority. CA (DC.
1-30-60) (Capital Controls Company)
(equipment will not satisfy needs).
3. Whitehall NY (H 2-5-40) (Davis Water
& Waste Industries. Inc.) (metal connection
was needed performance characteristic).
4. County Sanitation District* of Los
Angeles County. CA (DC. 6-2B-80) (Ingersou-
Rand Co.) (hard surface abrasive requirement
decreased maintenance cost).
Salient Requirements
1. East Bay Dischargers Authority, CA
(IX 11-16-79) (Brantley Instruments)
(Contra Costa Electric, Inc.)
Salient Requirements (5 35 93(>-13(
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
Sole Source
81:80 Sacramento County. CA (IX
10-2-61) (Westates Carbon Co.)
(inadequate justification).
81:83 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (UI, 10-13-81) (R&M Associates)
(single manufacturer prequalified).
81:86 Huntsville, AL (IV, 10-15-81)
(Municipal A Industrial Pipe Services
and Astor Bolden Enterprises) (must
justify naming single grout material
whether sole source or single material).
81:92 Hallandale, FL (IV. 11-3-61)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services;
Interstate Pipe Maintenance: and
Polymer Chemical Corp.) (single
material distinguished) (competition
among suppliers).
81:100 Harriman. TN (IV, 12-9-81}
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services)
(distinguished from single material with
several available suppliers).
82:02 Rush-Ryan Sewer Authority,
PA (III. 1-22-62) (R&M Assoc.)
(prequalification procedures) (reversed
81:83).
82:10 Sauget, IL (V. 2-19-62) (GHA
Lock Joint Co.) (specifications allowing
only one product is not sole source since
available from more than one source).
82:17 Lummi Indian. WA (X. 3-28-
82) (Walker Processing Corp.) (type RBC
available from sole source but other
brands could be modified).
82:18 Miami-Bade Water &
Sewerage Authority, FL (IV. 3-31-62)
(Worthington Group) (not sole source if
two or more manufactures can meet
specification).
82:19 Mount Pleasant SC (IV, 3-31-
82} (Bird Machine Co.) (justification for
sole sourcing inadequate).
82:37 Cullman, AL (IV, 7-6-82) (Cal
Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew Assoc.)
(equipment available from more than
one source not sole source-.
82:44 Memphis, TN (IV, 8-16-82]
(B.F. Goodrich Co.) (inadequate
justification for single material activated
filtration process).
82:68 Atwood. OH (V, 12-1-82)
(Munitech) (deviation from
specifications).
SoleSourc*
1. Tacoma. WA (X 4-9-80) (Wormington
Pump Corporation) (not sole source if
available from protester).
Sole Source
1. Cape May County, NJ (IL 8-31-79)
(Clow/Envirodisc Corp.) (coat
effectiveness analysis procedure)
2. De Kalb Sanitary District IL (V, 2-15-
.79) (Autotrol Corp.')
* 3. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Authority, FL (TV, 10-3-79) (Radiation
Dynamics, Inc.) (justification)
Sole Source Procurement (§ 35.936-13(b))
1. Monroe County. Michigan (V. 4-7-ra)
(Paddock Refinite) (justification uds«d on
Intel-changeability)
2. Waterford. Connecticut (I. S-IS-'B)
(Mulholland Construction Co.) (procedure)
3. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners.
New Jersey (U. 10-5-78) (DSP Division of
Envirotech Corp.. rtnd Whe.illry Corp 1
Sole Source Procurement (§ 35.936-
1. Lake Charles. Louisiana (VI. 12-
15-74) (Flygt Corp.)
2. Tonawanda. New Yorfc (II. 8-1-75)
(Ingersoll-Rand)
3. Palm Beach County, Florida (IV.
10-8-76) (pipe) (Price Brothers)
4. Cranberry Township, Pennsylva-
nia (III, 9-30-77) (Bay-Con Corp.)
-91-
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
Unduly Restrictive
D. Unduly Restrictive
83:01 Spearfish, SD (Vin. 1-11-83)
(Rickel Manufacturing Co.) (requiring
liquid cooled pump exceeded
minimum performance needs).
83:06 Western Carolina, SC (IV, 2-2-
83) (Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley)
(engineer is to establish minimum
performance needa and specifications
should be performance based).
83:18 Perryville, MD (IIL 3-21-83)
(Lyco Wastewater Equipment
Division) (RBC equipment arbitrarily
rejected) (must not include
requirements that are not performance
related).
83:23 Jerseyville, IL (V, 4-14-83) (Clow
Corp.) (requiring RBC be air driven
not minimum performance need)
(competition adversely affected—not
cured by manufacturer of described
item and not cured by ability of others
to create copy item).
83:30 St. Albans. WV (in, 5-27-83)
(Ralph B. Carter Co.) (performance
test allegedly made specifications
restrictive as applied).
83:38 Sacramento, CA (IX, 6-17-83)
(Power Machine Co.] (limitation of
type of filter media not unduly
restrictive where two suppliers).
83:39 Philadelphia, PA (IE, 6-22-83)
(Fisher Sr Porter Co.) (proprietary
design features) (specifications cannot
be modified through private
agreement involving testing).
83:43 Toledo, OH (V, 8-29-83)
(Industrial Pump &> Equipment Corp.)
(pumps selected for lower capital and
reapir costs and less installation
space).
83:48 Heber Spring. AR (VI. 8-2-83)
(Trigon Engineering Co.)
(nonexcluded bidder cannot protest
specifications).
83:51 Santa Barbara, CA (IX. 8-15-63)
(Namtec Corp. & Union Engineering
Co.} (grantee willingness to waive
requirement indicates specifications
overstated minimum needs).
83:55 Brazos River, TX (VL 9-23-83)
(Jeffery ManufacturingmDiv.) (shifting
burden of proof) (technical features
need not be only possible choice so
long as rational).
achieve uniformity in blowers
requiring single manufacturer).
83:70 Contra Costa, CA (DC 12-18-83)
(Perkin—Elmer) (exact compliance
with design specifications must be
determined from face of bid without
extrinsic evidence) (post bid
evaluation of equipment not permitted
where not provided for by IFB).
83:62 Wayne. NB (VII. 10-31-63)
(Envirex, Inc.) (by requiring
equipment substitution grantee
restrictively applied specifications).
83:68 Tri-City, OR (X. 12-9-83)
(Dresser Industries. Inc.) (temperature
rise specifications for blower
equipment to lower operating costs
rationally based) (specifications to
B. Unduly Restrictive
81:02 Little Blue Valley, MO (VII. 1-
8-81) (Eby Const.) (restrictive as
applied; local preference).
81:09 Wilmington, DE (HI. 2-12-81)
(Ashbrook-Simon-Hartleyj (maximum
unit price).
81:29 North Plainfield. NJ (II, 4-24-
81) (Schuylkill Products) (two pipe
materials specified).
81:43 Honolulu. HI (IX, 8-11-81)
(Hawaii Concrete Products) (vertical
cast pipe lacked performance basis).
81:47 Jasonville. IN (V, 6-30-81) .
(Hinde Engineering Co.) (catalog
specifications that competitors capable
of copying).
81:50 Kalida, OH (V, 7-2-81)
(Sherburn Co.) (single base bid pipe
procurement prohibited).
81:58 Ashland. KY (IV, 7-27-81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (EPA funds
minimum performance not ideal or best
design).
81:61 Southington, CT (L 8-7-81)
(Chemcon) (pump design).
81:82 Cobb County, GA (IV, 8-11-81)
(American Bioreactor Corp./BAV)
(single base bidding prohibited) (no sole
source violation where contract
permitted use of "equal").
81:68 Warren County MUA, NJ (II. 8-
19-81) {Schuylkill Products) (design
criteria permitted only two types pipe—
other processes not evaluated).
-92-
-------
SPECIFICATIONS
Unduly Restrictive
(CONTINUED)
81:69 Houma. LA (VL 8-19-ai)
(Hydromatic Pump) (catalog design
spe -.ificationa).
81:74 Tifton, GA (IV. 9-1-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services)
(single material).
81:79 Ashland. KY (IV.10-1-81)
(Fairbanks Morse Pump) (documented
maintenance costs as performance
requirements).
81:88 Huntsville. AL (TV. 10-15-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services,
and Astor Bolden Enterprises) (single
material grout).
81:85 Sacramento. CA (DC, 10-14WH)
(Dredge Masters International)
(performance testing of equipment).
81:89 Harford County. MD (HI, 10-
19-81) (Schuylkill Products) (nationally
accepted concrete pipe standard;
exclusion of Packerhead pipe).
81:92 Hallandale. FL (IV. 11-3-81)
(Municipal & Industrial Pipe Services,
Interstate Pipe Maintenance: and
Polymer Chemical Corp.) (single
material grout).
82:08 Tangier. VA (ffl. 2-11-82)
(Ultraviolet Purification Systems)
(excess capacity justified by
experimental design).
82:07 Chattanooga. TN (IV, 2-18-82)
(Spencer Turbine Co.) (requiring cast
iron for reliability, and performance).
82:18 Miami-Dade Water & Sewer
Authority. FL (IV, 3-31-82) (Worthington
Group) (design features requiring heavy
duty pump justified on past experience
and performance needs).
82:19 Mount Pleasant SC (IV, 3-31-
82) (Bird Machine Co., Inc.)
(specifications must be performance
based, not require duplication of
competitors design) (exclusionary
requirements not based on performance
resulted in unjustified sole source).
82:34 Monterey, CA (DC, 6-24-82)
(Frank M. Booth, Inc.] (not unduly
restrictive where only one manufacturer
supplies equipment but others are
capable).
82:37 Cullman, AL (IV. 7-6-82) (Cal
Corp.; Encore Corp.; and Drew and
Aasoc.) (performance requirements may
include safety, efficiency, reliability and
maintenance factors] (requiring single
brand "or equal" does not require
resoliciting because substitute
equipment permitted in alternate bid).
8238 Fulton, NY (IL 7-16-82) (LOC
Pump and Equipment) (minimum needs).
82:41 Abilene, TX (VI. 7-27-82) (R&S
Engineering] (manufacturers only)
(performance refers to minimum not
best).
82:43 Brockton, MA (L 8-16-82)
(Tenco Hydro) (may be unduly
restrictive even with two acceptable
materials).
82:44 Memphis, TN (IV, 8-16-82)
(B.F. Goodrich Co.) (inadequate
justification for single material activated
filtration process).
82*5 Pasadena. TX (VI, 8-17-82)
(Parkson) (protestor must show product
excluded).
82:46 Spearfish. SD (Vffl, 8-19-82)
(Sheesley Plumbing and Heating Co.]
(restrictive applications drawn around
single name brand).
82:49 Dumas, AR (VL 9-7-82) (Hinde
Engineering) (detailed catalog
specifications related to design more
than performance unduly restrictive)
(minimum performance not necessarily
"best").
82:50 Eaton. OH (V, 9-14-82)
(Wagoner Machinery) (catalog
specifications) (same as one
manufacturer's machine) (salient
requirements not identified).
82:53 Monterey. CA (DC, 9-29-82)
(Frank M. Booth. Inc.) (only one
supplier, not proof of undue restriction).
82:55 HaysviUe, KS (VIL10-13-82)
(Walker Process) (cm-site maintenance
as minimum performance need for major
equipment).
8237 Cape May County MUA, NJ (II.
11-1-82) (American Bioreactor Co. and
Fairfield Service Co.) ("or equal"
alternatives).
82:61 El Dorado. KS (VIL 11-16-82)
(Oursler Brothers Const) (catalog
specifications) (failure to state minimum
performance needs).
82:68 Smyrna. TN (IV. 11-29-82)
(Charles Finch Co. and Waterman
Industries) (rejection of "equal" must be
performance based).
82:68 Atwo'od, OH (V, 12-1-82)
(Munitech, Inc.) (sole source/deviation
from specifications).
82:70 Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission, OR (X, 12-
22-82) (Robert Dougan Const) (rejection
of all bids if grantee finds its
specifications unduly restrictive).
-93-
-------
SUBCONTRACT AWARD
Subcontract A ward
84:02 City of Bemidji, MN (V, 1-18-84)
(Fiber-Dyne, Inc.) (supplier
substitution by contractor not
protestable).
84:32 Bayshore Regional Sewerage
Authority, NJ (II, 8-30-84) (RAM
Engineering, Inc.] (subcontractor
may not protest his rejection by
prime contractors where proposal
submitted too late to be evaluated).
84:36 Austin. TX (VI, 9-6-64} (Olson
Const., Inc.) (subcontractor
responsibility normally determined
by prime contractor unless grantee
reserves right to do so in IFB).
Subcontract—Award
83:08 Hamilton. MT (Vm, 2-8-83) (4C
Plumbing & Heating, Inc.) (contractor
rejected MBE subcontractor for
business reasons).
83:29 Fargo, ND (Vm. 5-18-83} (Von
Bergen SrMarkson. Inc.; The Gray
Engineering Group, Inc. &
Conservatek, Inc.) (business reasons
for substituting subcontract).
83:24 Oklahoma City, OK
[Reconsideration] (VI, 5-23-83)
(Fiberglass Engineered Products, Inc.)
(anticipated receipt of contract not
protected by Fifth Amendment due
process).
83:57 Sod Run, Harford County. MD
(HI. 10-7-83) (CESCO, Inc.)
(equipment substitution by contractor
not protestable).
83:58 Evanston, WY (Vffl, 10-18-83)
(WesTech Engineering, Inc.)
(equipment substitution not
protestable).
83:81 Johnstown, OH (V, 10-24-83)
(Zimpro, Inc.) (subcontractor
substitution by contractor not
protestable).
(Continued on Next Page)
-94-
-------
SUBCONTRACT AWARD
(CONTINUED)
Subcontract—Award
81:06 Oceanside, CA (DC, 1-30-81)
(Bird Machine Co.) (prime bid
responsive though listed nonresponsible
subcontractor).
81:23 Passaic Valley. NJ (U, 4-20-32)
(Rochester Pump and Machine. Inc.) (no
EPA regulation for subcontractor
procuring supplies) (competitive
negotiation principles do not apply to
subcontractor selection).
81:55 Centerville. IA (VII, 7-21-81)
(Grady Unlimited) (MBE policy
establishes no right to award).
81:63 Honolulu. HI (IX. 8-12-81)
(Nichols Engineering 4 Research Co.)
(equipment procurement by subcontract
instead of separate direct contracts).
81:101 Ewing Lawrence Sewerage
Authority. NJ (II. 12-14-81) (Neshamir.y
Const.) (substitution of subcontractors
not protestable).
82:22 Goldendale, WA (X, 4-16-82)
(IMCO General Const.) (failure to list
subcontractors made of responsiveness).
82:64 Shady Spring PSD, WV (HI, 11-
22-82) (Davis Water & Waste Industries)
(subcontractor substitution not
protestable).
82:71 Columbus, OH (V, 12-29-82)
(Zimpro) (grounds for subcontractor
protest).
82:72 Alliance, OH (V. 9-10-82) (R&S
Engineering) (no standing where
subcontractor failed to attempt
prequalification).
Subcontract*—Award
1. Tacoma. WA (X 4-3-80) (Worthington
Pump Corporation) (cancellation of
subcontract).
2. Moorhead. MN (V, 8-3-80) (Waldor
Pump & Equipment Company) (coat savings
in alternate bid).
3. County of Nassau. NY (IL 8-7-00)
(Komline-Sanderson Engineering
Corporation) (supplier obtains no protest
rights by being listed).
Subcontracts—Award
1. Aurora Sanitary District. IL (V, 7-3-
79) (Ralph B. Carter Co.)
2. Gainesville, GA (IV, 6-15-79)
(National Hydro Systems, Inc. (H))
(substitution of equipment business
judgment)
3. Uainesville, GA (IV. 11-5-79)
(National Hydro Systems, Inc. (HI))
4. Hannibal, MO (VH, 6-7-79) (U.S.
Enviro-Con, Inc.) (business judgment)
5. Howard County, MD (ffl. 2-15-79)
(Water Pollution Control Corp.)
(business judgment).
6. Sterling, IL (V. 3-9-79) (Neptune CPC
Engineering Corp.) (substitution,
business judgment)'
7. Stillwater, OK (VL 3-1-79) (Robicon
Corp.)
Subcontracts. Awards of (§§ 35.937-12.
35.938-9 and 35.939(j)(6|).
1. Mountamlop. Pennsylvania (III. 1-5-78)
(National lljdro Systems Inc.) (substitution)
2. Gainesville. Georgia (IV. 1-17-78)
(National lUdro Systems Inc. and Tultle/
While Constructors)
3. North Little Rock. Arkansas (VI. 2-1-78)
(Environmental Equipment Corp.) (fairness:
selection by grantee)
4. Cynlhiana. Kentucky (IV, 2-9-78) (|ames
N. Gray Construction Co.) (prequahficalion)
5. Webster. Iowa (VII. 2-10-78)
(Environmental Systems Division of George
A. Hormel S Co.. Inc.)
6. East Bay Dischargers Authority
California (IX. 2-15-78) (R. D. Smith) (A/E
subagreements: minority business enterprise)
7. Fairfax County. Virginia (III. 3-17-78)
(John W. Cowper Co. Inc.)
8. Antigo. Wisconsin (V. 3-24-78) (General
Filter Co.) (obligation of prime to furnish
conforming equipment)
*9. Cumberland County. New jersey (II. 3-
31-78) (Dorr-Oliver Inc.) (restrictive effect of
mistaken specification listing as equivalent)
10. Newlon. North Carolina (IV. 4-25-78)
(Carolina Concrete Pipe Co.) (pipe: alternate
materials)
11. Waterford. Connecticut (I. 5-19-78)
(Mulholland Construction Co.)
'12. Prince William County. Virginia (III. 8-
4-78) (Spencer Turbine Co.) (prequalification.
rational basis as standard)
'13. Newcastle. Indiana—Reconsideration
(V. 8-23-78) (Newcastle. Indiana) (EPA
overview)
14. Oklahoma City. Oklahoma (VI. 8-25-78)
(Automatic Engineering Inc.)
15 Frankfort. Kentucky (IV. irMR-7H|
(PiissiiVfint)
IB Urb.ind-Champriign. Illinois (V. ]1-9-r8|
(Norton Co |
17. Lake County. Illinois (V. il-17-78)
(Envirex)
18. Delaware County. Ohio (V. 11-21-78)
(R. B. Carter)
-95-
-------
SUBCONTRACT AWARD
(CONTINUED)
Subcontracts, Award of (§§ 35.938-9.
and 3S.939(j)(6».
1. Hollywood. Florida (IV. 3-13-74)
(equipment manufacturer listing)
-------
WAIVER
Waiver
84:01 Gwynns Falls, MD (III, 1-13-84)
[Joseph L Cardinale & Sons, Inc.]
(bid in amount less than required]
(late submittal of payment and
performance bond].
84:03 Town of Williston, VT (1,1-25-
84] (Cooley Corp.] (failure to submit
bid bond with bid is nonwaivable).
84:07 Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of
Greater Chicgo, IL (V, 2-6-84] (A.J.
Maggio Co.; Dresser Ind., Inc., and
Klein Const. Co.) (minor
irregularities must be waived].
84:36 Austin, TX (VL 9-6r64) (Olson
Const., Inc.] (failure to bid on an
alternate that was unnecessary for
bid eva.lua.tion was minor
informality].
84:56 City of Fort Lauderdale, FL (VI.
12-27-84) (Gray Engineering Group,
Inc.) (bidder cannot waive right to
have bid withdrawn where he
admits mistake).
84:57 Neenah-Menasha Sewerage
Commission (V, 12-31-64) (Flour
Bros. Const. Co.) (failure to file bid
on time may not be waived as
minor irregularity).
Waiver
83:05 Morton. MS (IV. 1-25-83)
(Associated Const., Inc.) (license
requirement waived as technicality).
83:07 Oklahoma City, OK (VT, 2-4-83)
(D.J. Domas, Inc.) (grantee must have
rational basis for refusing to waive
minor informalities).
83:09 Covington, GA (IV. 2-9-83)
(Griffin Const. Co., & Ethridge
Brothers Const., Inc.) (discretionary
authority of grantee cannot be
compelled by bidder).
83:32 Los Angeles, CA (DC. 6-6-83)
(Advanco Constructors, Inc.)
(irregularities hi listing subcontractors
must be waived as minor where IFB
did not make it matter of
responsiveness).
83:34 New Concord. OH (V. 6-10-83)
(Adams Robinson Enterprise, Inc.)
(failure to acknowledge receipt of
addendum not waivable where
material).
83:40 Elkhart, IN (V. 6-22-83)\(Penn
Equipment & Tool Corp.) (minor
deviations involving bid bond surety
form caused no competitive
advantage).
83:46 Palatine. IL (V, 7-19-83) (Di
Paolo-Rossetti, Joint Venture) (where
MBE requirements are responsiveness
matters, waiver not permitted).
83:68 Tri-City, OR (X12-9-83)
(Dresser Industries, Inc.) (bidder
waives protest issue by not submitting
evidence).
Waiver
81:20 Tomah. WI (V, 4-10-81) (W.G.
Jaques) (MBE requirement designated
responsiveness not waivable).
81:24 El Dorado Irrigation District
CA (DC. 4-13-81) (Lotus Const.] (failure
to acknowledge addenda).
81:48 Cleveland. MS (IV, 7-1-81)
(Roland Pugh Const.) (wavier of minor
deviation not giving bidder advantage).
81:50 Kalida, OH (V, 7-2-81)
(Sherbum Co.) (failure to list unit prices
not waivable).
81:107 Colchester, CT (112-31-81)
(Clark Sewer Const.} (failure to bid on
alternate waivable).
82:03 Fort Wayne, IN (V, 1-25-82)
(Bates & Rogers Cjnst.) (waiver of fiscal
integrity requirements).
82:21 Fallbrook Sanitary District CA
(IX. 4-6-82) (Metro-Young/Lopez Const,
A Joint Venture} (demonstration of
positive MBE requirements).
8227 Eveleth, MN (V, 5-3-82)
(Gridor Const) (may waive dib defect
where immaterial).
82:35 Van Biiren County, MI (V, 8-
28-82) (Union Const.) (omission
waivable as minor where no competitive
edge results).
82:68 Atwood. OH (V, 12-1-82)
(Munitech) (Waiver of deviation from
specifications) (appeal filed with EPA 5
days late).
82:89 Globe, AZ (DC, 12-8-82)
(Mercury Const.} (failure to
acknowledge addenda).
-97-
-------
VVAIVER (CONTINUED)
Waiver
1. Alpine Sanitary District AZ (DC, 9-26-
79) (Gus's Trenching and Pipeline Co.)
2. Bardstown, KY (IV, 1-3-79) (E. H.
Hughes Co.) (I)
3. Detroit, MI (V, 12-11-79) (Dynamic
Construction Co., Inc.)
4. Jackson, CA (DC, 7-5-79) (Joseph R.
Ramos Pipeline Engineering)
5. James Island Public Service District,
SC (IV, 5-2-79) (Pyramid Builders,
Inc.)
8. Kansas City, MO (Vn, 12-20-79)
(Carney Companies)
Waiver.
1. Cynthiana. Kentucky (IV, 2-9-78) (James
N. Cray Construction Co.) (luting
nonapproved equipment)
2. Effingham. Illinois (V. 3-6-78) (Mautz ft
Oren Inc.) (omissions of line item*)
3. Chicago (Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago). Illinois (V. 3-12-78)
(Howard Martin Construction) (local
procedures)
4. Amherst. New York (IL £-15-78) (CImato
Bros. Inc.)
*5. Bay County. Michigan (V. 8-11-78)
(Frank V. Louis Equipment Co.) (Contract JJo,
1) (addendum acknowledgment—Minor
informality)
6. Onondaga County. New York (DL 8-23-
78) (Pizzagalli Construction Company and
John W. Cowper)
Waiver.
1. Denver. (City) Colorado (VIII, 4-
22-74) (price omission—subtler (1
item)) (Pinkard Donovan)
2. Manitowoc. Wisconsin (V, 12-18-
74) (grantee cannot waive failure to in-
clude bid bond) (P. A. Lawrence Co.)
3. Alexandria. Virginia (III, 4-4-75)
(non-computation of state taxes)
(John C. Grimberg)
*4. Woonsocket, Rhode Island (I. 6-
20-75) (failure to complete EO 11246
Certification of prior work) (Westcott)
5. South Portland. Maine (I. 10-7-75)
(pump data) (Pizzagalli Construction
Co.)
6. Cleveland Regional Sewer District
(Westerly Plant), Ohio (V. 11-3-75)
(rejection of all bids context—supply
. of subitem) (Blount Brothers and
Darin
-------
APPENDIX
GUIDANCE FOR UTILIZATION OF S/M/WBEs
CHAPTER 10 - BID PROTESTS
The hid protest chapter of the Guidance concisely
explains the issues which most often arise in bid protests
concerning small, minority and womens1 business enterprise
requirements. The OGC Grants Branch recommends that, upon
receiving an appeal concerning these issues, the EPA attorney
refer immediately to this chapter and rely as much as possible
on its analysis of the issues. This should result in shorter
and more promptly issued decisions.
Questions and comments concerning this area should
be referred to Kent Holland or Anthony Guadagno, EPA Office
of General Counsel; Phone: (202) 382-5313.
99
-------
-------
United States Office of the Administrator May 1986
Environmental Protection Office of Small and
Agency Disadvantaged Business
Utilization
Guidance for Utilization
of Small, Minority and
Women's Business
Enterprises in
Procurement
Under Assistance
Agreements - 6010
1986 Edition
-------
/86
EPA GUIDANCE FOR UTILIZATION OF S/M/WBE IN PROCUREMENT
UNDER ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
NOTICE
This guidance was prepared by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency for use by EPA personnel, State and local government officials and
business persons interested in participating in EPA financial assistance
programs. The purpose of the guidance is to provide information regarding
the utilization of small/ minority and women-owned business entities under
EPA's financial assistance programs.
In the event there are any conflicts between this guidance and EPA
regulations, the regulations will govern.
PREPARED BY:
PROJECT MEMBERS:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (A-149C)
Office of the Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
George K. Mori
Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (A-149C)
Office of the Administrator
J. Kent Holland, Jr., Esquire
Grants, Contracts and General
Law Division (LE-132G)
Office of General Counsel
Richard A. Johnson
Grants Administration
Division (PM-216)
Office of Administration
Tod A. Gold
Municipal Construction Division (WH-547)
Office of Municipal Water Control
Camille J. Lee
Hazardous Support
Response Division (WH-548)
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Elaine T. Rice
Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (A-149C)
Office of the Administrator
-------
6010
5/22/86
EPA GUIDANCE FOR UTILIZATION OF S/M/WBB IN PROCUREMENT
UNDER ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
CHAPTER 10
BID PROTESTS
A. CHALLENGES TO MBE/WBE STATUS
Complaints by firms challenging another firm's status as an MBE/WBE will
not be entertained under the bid protest procedures of 40 CFR Part 33. Any
firm or individual that files a false statement may be prosecuted under 18
U.S.C. 1001. Because of the interest of bona fide MBEs/WBEs in obtaining
subagreements, it is reasonable to conclude that such bona fide firms will
help EPA and appropriate Federal authorities identity "bogus" or "front"
MBEs/WBEs. In the event that allegations are made that a firm
misrepresented its status as an MBE/WBE, the matter may be investigated by
the Office of the Inspector General and, where appropriate, turned over to
the Department of Justice for criminal and/or civil prosecution.
Such firms can also be excluded from further participation in Federal
programs by debarment or suspension action. Actions for exclusion from all
Federal Acquisition activities are taken under the Federal Acquisition
Regulations, 48 CFR Subpart 9.4; actions for exclusion from EPA assistance
programs are taken under 40 CFR Part 32. See Chapter 11.
B. MBE/WBE COMPLIANCE — BIDDER RESPONSIBILITY V8 BID RESPONSIVENESS
1. As a general rule, MBE/WBE documentation (i.e., documentation
demonstrating positive efforts or compliance with grantee MBE/WBE
requirements) is a matter of bidder "responsibility".
a. Responsibility. The term responsibility means the apparent
ability of the bidder to successfully carry out the requirements of a
contract. Aspects of responsibility include such things as financial
resources, technical qualifications, experience, organization and facilities
adequate to carry out the project, ability to meet the completion schedule,
satisfactory contract performance record and compliance with or willingness
to comply with civil rights laws and other legal requirements. See 40 CFR
33.220. The determination of bidder responsibility focuses upon the.
bidder's apparent ability to perform in the required manner on the date
performance is required. Where a bidder has failed to submit information
required to demonstrate its responsibility, such information may be
submitted after bid opening, but prior to contract award. Consequently, a
bidder who is not responsible when bids are submitted may still qualify for
contract award if it can establish its responsibility before the contract
award date.
MBE/WBE compliance documentation serves the principle purpose of
assisting the recipient in determining whether the bidder is responsible,
i.e., has the ability to meet, or make good faith efforts to meet, the
10-1
-------
6010
5/22/86
EPA GUIDANCE FOR UTILIZATION OF S/M/WBE IN PROCUREMENT
UNDER ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
recipient's MBE/WBE goals and satisfy the EPA MBE/WBE policy. Therefore, if
a bidder fails to complete all the MBE/WBE forms with its bid or fails to
take positive efforts prior to submitting the bid, these shortcomings may be
corrected after bid opening. The exception to this rule occurs when the
recipient has specifically made MBE/WBE requirements and demonstration of
positive efforts matters of bid "responsiveness" to be determined at the
time of bid opening.
b. Responsiveness. A "responsive" bid is one which on its face
meets the specifications and the material terms of the Invitation for Bid
(IFB). Material terms are those terms affecting price, quantity, quality or
delivery and any other terms which are clearly identified by the bid
solicitation documents as requirements that must be complied with at the
time of bid in order for the bid to be accepted as "responsive".
A failure of a bid to meet a material term of the IFB cannot be
cured after bid opening. This is the most significant difference between
matters of responsiveness and responsibility.
2. Careful and Clear Drafting. Recipients may make compliance with
MBE/WBE requirements a matter of responsiveness instead of responsibility.
However, because such requirements are normally matters of responsibility,
they will have to be treated as such unless the recipient clearly and
unequivocally states in.the bid solicitation documents that failure to meet
the MBE/WBE requirements will cause the bid to be rejected as
nonresponsive. In deciding to make these requirements matters of
responsiveness, the recipient must exercise extreme care in drafting the IFB
and all bid solicitation documents. If there is any ambiguity in these
documents concerning whether a bid failing to comply with the requirements
will be automatically rejected as nonresponsive, the requirement will be
considered to be a matter of responsibility which can be cured by -the bidder
after bid opening. Consequently, where there is such ambiguity in the bid
solicitation documents the recipient must not reject a nonconforming bid as
nonresponsive.
3. Protest Examples. EPA has reviewed numerous recipient procurement
actions involving the issue of whether MBE/WBE requirements were made
matters of responsiveness or responsibility. The rule which is consistently
followed by EPA is that in order for a recipient to reject a bid -as
nonresponsive due to a failure to do something which is generally a matter
of responsibiity (such as listing subcontractors and submitting positive
efforts information), the solicitation for bids must have clearly and
unequivocally stated that such failure would cause the bid to be rejected as
nonresponsive. Many of the bid protest appeals considered by EPA involve
bid solicitations which were ambiguous as to when the MBE/WBE requirements
had to be met by the bidder.
a. Examples of language which failed to make it sufficiently clear
and mandatory that MBE/WBE documentation and requirements must be submitted
with the bid include provisions in the bid solicitation stating that:
10-2
-------
6010
5/22/86
EPA GUIDANCE FOR UTILIZATION OF S/M/WBE IN PROCUREMENT
UNDER ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
(1) Failure to submit such information "may be cause to reject
the bid," City of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, (Region V, June 25, 1979) (Protest
of Collavinc Const., Inc.);
(2) "Failure to list . . . will render the bid nonresponsive and
may cause its rejection." Sand Point, Idaho (Region X, March 3, 1983)
(Protest of Ludig Const., Inc.); and
(3) "Failure to complete the equipment manufacturers form shall
be grounds for rejection of his bid as nonresponsive" New Hampshire Water
Supply and Pollution Control Commission (Region I, March 16, 1984) (Protest
of Cattamount Const., Inc.)
b. In each of these examples the language failed to provide for the
automatic, mandatory rejection of non-conforming bids. The statement that
failure to do something may result in the rejection of the bid is
ambiguous. The action verb "may" is equivocal and non-mandatory because of
its permissive nature. The fact that it may be rejected implies the
possibility that it "may not" be rejected. Where such language is used in
the bid solicitation, the recipient cannot reject as nonresponsive a bid
which fails to provide documentation of a requirement which is generally
considered to be a matter of responsibility. Where an IFB clearly and
unequivocally states that failure to submit a subcontractor list or MBE
documentation- will make a bid nonresponsive, but the IFB does not state what
action will be taken regarding such a nonresponsive bid (e.g., rejection),
it is nevertheless correct to reject the bid since pursuant .to 40 CFR
Sec. 33.430(b), award can only be made to responsive bids. See Monterey,
California (EPA Region IX, September 12, 1985) (Protest of Mortenson/Natkin).
4. In reviewing bid solicitations to determine whether MBE/WBE matters
have been made matters of responsiveness, EPA looks beyond the specific
language in the bid form or IFB and examines all areas of the bid
solicitation documents to determine whether they are clear and unequivocal.
For example, if the language in one portion of the bid documents clearly
states that documentation is a matter of responsiveness but the language
which appears elsewhere in the document gives a different meaning, the
requirement cannot be considered a matter of responsiveness. See, New
Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. supra. If the
recipient chooses to make certain items, such as commitment to a fair share
percentage, a matter of responsiveness, and other items, such as submission
of data sheets, a matter of responsibility, the recipient should clearly
separate these items and make it clear to bidders which items are matters of
responsiveness and which are matters of responsibility.
5. Consequence of Responsiveness. If the recipient makes MBE/WBE
documentation and requirements, matters of responsiveness, it must then
reject any bid which fails to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation
as of the time of bid opening. The recipient has no real discretion in
making this decision because a nonresponsive bid cannot be cured and made
10-3
-------
6010
5/22/86
EPA GUIDANCE FOR UTILIZATION OF S/M/WBE IN PROCUREMENT
UNDER ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
responsive after bid opening. Consequently, a bid which is not responsive
to the MBE/WBE requirements must be rejected even if the recipient believes
that accepting the bid is in its best interests and the best interests of
the MBE/WBE program. For example, it would be necessary to reject a bidder
that did not submit documentation (if it were a matter of responsiveness)
even though after bid opening that bidder demonstrates it satisfies the
affirmative steps and attained or promised to attain MBE/WBE participation
exceeding the grantee's goals and/or exceeded the MBE/WBE participation
offered by the next low bidder. See, Village of Palatine, Illinois (EPA
Region V, July 19, 1983) (Protest of Di Paolo-Rossetti). However in
Toronto,- Ohio (EPA Region V, February 2, 1984) (Protest of Cavanaugh Co.), a
bid that failed to submit documentation required by the IFB was nevertheless
responsive because it specifically committed to meeting the grantee's MBE
goals. Since the bidder was contractually committed to the goal, the
documentation was only relevant to evaluating the bidder's responsibility,
that is, its ability to meet the goal.
6. Effective Use of Responsibility Criteria. Assistance recipients can
effectively use definitive responsibility criteria to assure that bidders
exercise the affirmative steps required by 40 CFR Sec. 33.240. For example,
the Invitation For Bids (IFB) may require that bidders advertise in various
newspapers and trade journals, solicit subcontractors by using lists of
MBE/WBEs provided by federal, state or local agencies, and take other
specific action to demonstrate that the affirmative steps were taken. The
recipient can then determine after bid-opening (before contract award)
whether the low bidder satisfied the required definitive responsibility
criteria and reject any bidder that failed to meet the criteria. See, San
Bernardino, Ca. (EPA, Region 9, January 15, 1986) (Protest of MCI
Cons tr uctor s, Inc.).
C. EPA PROTEST APPEALS PUBLICATION
A publication containing extracts of EPA protest appeal determinations
concerning MBE/WBE matters is available from OSDBU and the Regional EPA
offices.
10-4
------- |