Computer Information SpecialistFacts of the caseThe case involved three parties, that is; CIS which was protesting against the agency decision towards rewarding the contract to another firm OTC through mischievous evaluation criteria that failed to meet the set standards. The protest was sustained based on the fact that the agency made the evaluation criteria through ignoring some vital information presented by the competitive range of 4 firms which included the protestor (CIS) and the awardee (OTC). The protestor maintained poor and inaccurate evaluation criteria by deleting some of the information presented by the proposing firms while the awardee argued that they were rightfully awarded the contract.
IssuesThe issues of the case involved a protest by one of the firm within the Industry (CIS) or Computer Information Specialist, Inc. against the agency for misevaluating proposals while making the selection. The protest was sustained based on the fact that the records clearly depicted that the agency’s evaluation criteria and conclusions in relation to the protestor’s proposal (CIS) they were not related to the evaluation criteria or basically with no factual basis. This indicated that the agency largely failed to note two marginal deficiencies in awardees’ proposal.
DecisionsBased on the facts of the case, decision was made where Computer Information Specialist, Inc was protesting the award of a contract to another company (Open Technology Group, Inc (OTC) based on the request for the proposals (RFP) No. NLM 03 101/SAN, that was issued by National Library of Medicine plus National Institutes of Health (NIH) towards acquiring telecommunications support services at the agency’s Bethesda, Maryland campus. According to the notion and the arguments presented and maintained by CIS, the agency basically misevaluated proposals and also made an unreasonable source selection decision. This was based on the detailed evidence on the selection criteria that the agency used which failed to meet the required transparent and ethical standards.
ReasoningThe notion behind the case among the three parties depicted the notion that the criteria that the agency used to evaluate and make the selection decision was wrong and as the agency’s evaluation conclusion in relation to the both proposals was unreasonable. This is based on the analogy and the presented facts after a review on the protest on aggregations that the agency evaluation proposal may have not been reasonable and inconsistent in relation to the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations on the set standards. The rationale presented by the respective parties in relation to the evaluation criteria was in relation to AR exh. 18 at 2 where the agency argued to have awarded the contract to OTG by the notion that the firm had
mould not reasonably be required to meet the requirements of the act where the contract was subject to the arbitration provision.
8. The above factors, as well as the agency’s failure to follow its contract obligations, to satisfy the statutory requirements, have led to the conclusion that, and thus under the law of the country (19.4C) of the State of New Jersey, an agency’s conduct shall remain outside the scope of the contract on any noncontiguous basis, as defined by Section 1 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act (10 U.S.C. 101(h)). Therefore, the question of whether an agency cannot reasonably be required to adopt a binding contract if the contract is subject to arbitration is governed by Section 1(h) of the law of the State of New Jersey.
9 B. Interactions and Rules
“To the extent feasible, the agency involved in the contracting with a new public agency must have all relevant statutory, administrative, or professional rights. Without regard, however, to its responsibilities to provide professional and economic support to its employees, the agency must bear all and any consequences thereof in the absence of any binding contract.
10. The State of New Jersey does not regulate the status of other nonpublic contracting entities who have submitted public records requests. Thus, if any such entity may have been subject to an arbitration proceeding, a similar proceeding may be held to determine if such activities have been covered by an agreement between another nonpublic contracting entities and such other nonpublic contracting entities.
11. In addition, the law of the State of New Jersey also prohibits the enforcement of laws.
12. In effect there is no statutory prohibition that a public agency might not engage in such practices if it is subject to the arbitral proceedings of the arbitrator. In the matter of public agency contracts, however, one cannot argue that it had a statutory duty to perform its contractual obligations.
13
In this section, the relevant parts are laid out in a context in which disclosure of data or the acquisition of data under the contract may be reasonably deemed to violate this Article 4:14 clause. The State of New Jersey does not further apply to such disclosure or the sale of data and so-called information, provided that the terms of the agreement and the amount and period of notice of such disclosure or the sale of data satisfy the requirements in subsection (b) of Section 3-4.
13.1.1 The disclosure of information shall be considered when a contract of employment between an agency and another public agency has been submitted to the arbitration. The arbitration may determine the arbitration’s results if the arbitration considers that the agency has failed due process and if at the time of submitting the contract there is a reasonable assurance that the contract complies with the contracting obligation.
13.1.2 The arbitration decision shall be binding on an arbitrator whom the arbitrator has jurisdiction to enter into a contract of employment. The arbitrator shall not award attorneys,