Protest Decision _ DOR0000130.pdf

Phone: 404-656-5514 200 Piedmont Avenue SE Suite 1804 West Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30334-9010 Fax: 404-656-6279 www.doas.ga.gov

Brian P. Kemp Governor

Rebecca N. Sullivan Commissioner

September 28, 2023

VIA E-MAIL

Mr. John Yarbrough, AVP, Business Development & Legislative Affairs PDP Group, Inc.

10909 McCormick Road Hunt Valley, MD 21031

John.Yarbrough@pdpgroupinc.com

Protest # 2024-PRO-00012 RE: Protest Regarding RFP 47400-DOR0000130 “Electronic Lien Title (ELT) Services”

Dear Mr. Yarbrough:

This letter is in response to PDP Group, Inc.’s (“PDP”) request that the Georgia Department of Revenue (“DOR”) reconsider PDP Group, Inc’s bid for Electronic Lien Title related services.

On March 6, 2023, the Georgia Department of Revenue issued RFP 47400-DOR0000130 entitled “Electronic Lien Title (ELT) Services” seeking up to seven (7) qualified suppliers for the Electronic Lien Title program to facilitate electronic transactions between participating lienholders and the Department of Revenue, in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 40-3-26.

A Notice of Intent to Award (“NOIA”) was posted to the Georgia Procurement Registry (“GPR”) on August 30, 2023, indicating six suppliers as apparent successful offerors, and indicating that two suppliers, PDP Group Inc and Dealer Support Services, Inc. were unsuccessful offerors. Although PDP submitted a timely response to the solicitation, that response did not include the mandatory response worksheet, so PDP’s proposal was deemed nonresponsive. PDP submitted a letter on September 1, 2023, acknowledging its failure to include the Mandatory Response Worksheet, and requesting reconsideration of the nonresponsive determination.

Although as a general rule, a bid must be rejected as nonresponsive when it does not conform to the solicitation’s terms and conditions, this rule does not apply to deviations which are immaterial, including those which are matters of form rather than substance. 1 In this instance, PDP’s failure to include a mandatory worksheet is clearly a matter of form because language in the body of the solicitation also accomplishes the same purpose by requiring the supplier to agree (via the action of submitting a response to the solicitation) that all items included in the Supplier’s response meet or exceed the solicitation’s identified specifications and requirements:

By responding to this solicitation, the Supplier understands and agrees to the following…

(2) That the Supplier guarantees and certifies that that all items included in the Supplier’s response meet or exceed all the solicitation’s identified specifications and requirements except as expressly stated otherwise in the Supplier’s response.2

1 See Section 5.6.2.1 of the GPM, entitled “Responsive”.

2 See Section 3.3 of the Attachment A “State Entity eRFP-ELT”

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F59AA8E-27CF-4D1E-9408-ADA4ACFC884B mailto:John.Yarbrough@pdpgroupinc.com

Protest Regarding Electronic Lien Title (ELT) Services September 28, 2023

Phone: 404-656-5514 200 Piedmont Avenue SE Suite 1804 West Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30334-9010 Fax: 404-656-6279 www.doas.ga.gov

Additionally, Section 7 of the eRFP entitled “Contract Terms and Conditions” contained the following statement, which also accomplished the same purpose as responding “Yes” in the mandatory requirement worksheet:

By submitting a proposal, each supplier acknowledges its acceptance of the eRFP specifications and the statewide contract terms and conditions without change except as otherwise expressly stated in the Supplier’s submitted proposal.

Here, where there is such a complete absence of advantage to PDP or disadvantage to any other bidder by the omission of the Mandatory Response worksheet, coupled with the fact that the terms contained in Section 3.3 and Section 7 of the solicitation document furnished substantial compliance with the purpose of the mandatory requirement worksheet, it is clear that DOR maintained authority to waive the irregularity (permitting the supplier to cure the defect).3

A supplier’s failure to include the mandatory response worksheet is currently handled in differing manners by issuing officers, with some issuing officers rejecting the bid as nonresponsive, and others permitting a supplier to cure the defect. This is likely due to an evolution in policy, policy interpretation, and competitive solicitation language, as well as related training. After discussions with DOAS staff regarding current policy interpretation, DOR has indicated that DOR wishes to permit PDP to cure the defect with regards to its Mandatory Worksheet. DOR will then move forward with further evaluation of PDP’s proposal to determine whether it is subject to award. Understanding that this evaluation may take additional time, and there are suppliers who submitted non-deviating bids that are awaiting award, the stay of contract award is lifted, and DOR may move forward with execution and implementation of those contracts while the evaluation of PDP’s proposal takes place.

Sincerely, Jim Barnaby Deputy Commissioner cc: Samantha Smith, DOR-Solicitation@dor.ga.gov ; vanessa.walker@dor.ga.gov

3 See Section 2.1.7 of the eRFP

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F59AA8E-27CF-4D1E-9408-ADA4ACFC884B mailto:DOR-Solicitation@dor.ga.gov mailto:vanessa.walker@dor.ga.gov