Panel revokes $32.4M contract from FairPoint, again
The state's Bureau of General Services has for the second time revoked a $32.4 million emergency communications contract awarded to FairPoint Communications by the state's Public Utilities Commission.
In a decision issued Nov. 9, the bureau's Appeal Panel upheld the second complaint from Lewiston-based Oxford Networks and Intrado, based in Longmont, Colo., saying the companies "established by clear and convincing evidence that the evaluation process... violated the law."
The PUC first awarded FairPoint the contract to provide statewide Next Gen 9-1-1 services in January. From a field of nine applicants, Oxford and Intrado appealed the decision, taking issue with FairPoint, the incumbent contract holder, receiving the state deal despite presenting a higher bid of $32.4 million. Oxford Networks' and Intrado's bids were $24.9 million and $27.8 million, respectively.
In response to that initial complaint, the Appeal Panel invalidated the PUC's contract award process and ordered the agency to conduct a second bid review, which reconsidered applications from the nine bidders and awarded the contract to FairPoint a second time.
Following the second appeal filed by Oxford and Intrado in September, the panel's latest ruling found that the PUC should have reopened bidding for the contract rather than re-scoring the original proposals.
FairPoint spokeswoman Sabina Haskell said Thursday that the company is still reviewing the decision and considering its options. Any party to the contract award process has 30 days to appeal the Nov. 9 decision.
Craig Donaldson, Intrado's senior vice president of regulatory and government affairs, said in a prepared statement that the company is pleased with the decision.
"We are hopeful that the PUC will consider a fresh start by reaching out to the public safety community for their input in designing Maine's Next Generation 9-1-1 system and introducing new life-saving services that are right for Maine," Donaldson said.
A primary factor in the panel's decision was a finding that none of the bidders could have realistically met an emergency network implementation deadline of August 2013. In failing to evaluate timeliness and deadlines — a key metric for evaluating the RFPs — the panel says the PUC evaluation team "failed to consider how the proposal conformed to an important RFP specification, which included the timing of delivery of services, and that this failure constitutes a violation of law."
Most Recent
Most Recent
Comments