Narrative Opinion Summary
Ascend Management Innovations, LLC contested the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services' decision to award a contract to Keystone Peer Review Organization, Inc. Following Ascend's bid protest citing KEPRO's lack of requisite qualifications for conducting Supports Intensity Scale (SIS) assessments, the court evaluated the timeliness and merit of the protest under the Procurement Code. The court concluded that Ascend's protest was timely, filed within days of discovering KEPRO's selection, and remanded the case to the Department for a reassessment on its merits. The RFQ had explicitly required the capability to administer SIS assessments, which Ascend argued KEPRO did not possess. Ascend also sought access to KEPRO's proposal documents and requested an evidentiary hearing, both initially denied, but the court recognized the potential need for document review upon remand. The Designee's discretion in denying a hearing was upheld, absent evidence of bad faith. The court lifted a stay on the contract's execution, allowing DHS to proceed with KEPRO, pending a reevaluation of Ascend's protest. The Department's Final Determination was reversed, and the case was remanded for further consideration, with the stay lifted but subject to appeal provisions under the Procurement Code.
Legal Issues Addressed
Discretionary Power of Designee in Holding Hearingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Designee's discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing was challenged, but such denial requires evidence of bad faith or abuse of power to be overturned.
Reasoning: Under Section 1711.1(e) of the Procurement Code, the Designee has discretion over hearing requests, and reversal of refusal to hold a hearing requires evidence of bad faith or abuse of power.
Lifting of Stay under Procurement Code Section 1711.1(k)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lifted the stay on contract execution, allowing the Department to proceed with awarding the contract to KEPRO, pending further examination of Ascend's protest.
Reasoning: The stay granted on November 1, 2017, is lifted, but the resolution of Ascend's appeal stays the Department's award of the contract to KEPRO as per Section 1711.1(k).
Requirement of SIS Capability in RFQsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The RFQ mandated that the selected contractor must have the capability to administer SIS assessments, a factor which was not properly assessed by the Designee in KEPRO's selection.
Reasoning: The RFQ specified that the selected contractor must possess the capability to administer SIS assessments from the start of the contract, and it contained multiple references to SIS requirements crucial for the contractor's responsibilities.
Right to Document Review in Bid Protestsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: While the Procurement Code does not grant rights to discovery, Ascend is entitled to review documents relied upon by the Designee for the determination upon remand.
Reasoning: The Procurement Code does not grant protestants the right to document production or discovery, but Ascend is entitled to review documents that the Designee may rely on upon remand.
Timeliness of Bid Protest under Procurement Code Section 1711.1(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Ascend's protest was deemed timely as it was filed within four days of learning about KEPRO's selection, disputing KEPRO's qualifications rather than the RFQ terms.
Reasoning: Ascend contends that it was protesting the selection of KEPRO, not the RFQ terms, arguing its protest was timely since it learned of KEPRO’s selection on June 26, 2017, and filed a protest four days later.