Award of $1.4M traffic signal upgrade project is upheld

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman upheld yesterday the Procurement and Supply director’s decision to award the Department of Public Works’ traffic signal upgrade project to Radiocom Saipan Inc.

Wiseman determined that the Office of the Public Auditor did not make a mistake in denying the appeal of one of the bidders, Maeda Pacific Corp.

The judge also ruled that the Procurement and Supply director’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

Wiseman said OPA’s decision was well-reasoned, and that he supports and upholds its decision to give deference to the procuring agency in the absence of any evidence showing bad faith, fraud, bias, or conflict of interest.

Wiseman said he sees no reason to believe that Procurement and Supply lacked a reasonable basis for its decision to find Radiocom’s bid as being unreasonable and without sufficient reason to question OPA’s decision reviewing the Commonwealth’s evaluation.

The judge upheld OPA’s finding that the price evaluation of Radiocom’s bid was not unreasonable.

Wiseman agreed with OPA that Maeda has failed to provide any evidence that would cast any shadow of a doubt on Radiocom’s ability to obtain the necessary equipment or facilities to perform the work the contract provides for.

Thus, Wiseman said, the Procurement and Supply director’s determination and OPA’s decision on Maeda’s protest do not rise to the level of arbitrary and capricious.

According to court records, Radiocom Saipan Inc. and Maeda Pacific Corp. were among those that responded to an invitation for bids on the traffic signal upgrade project.

After the bidding was closed, the director of Procurement and Supply announced its intent to award the winning bid to Radiocom, which was the lowest bidder at $1.4 million.

Maeda protested with the director of Procurement and Supply. After the director denied the protest, Maeda appealed to the Office of the Public Auditor.

OPA ruled against Maeda on May 10, 2013. Maeda, through counsel Juan T. Lizama, appealed that decision to the Superior Court.

Maeda claimed that Procurement and Supply and OPA’s decision not to find Radiocom non-responsible and an unreasonable bidder are arbitrary and capricious acts.

Maeda also asked whether OPA erred in requiring Maeda to have the burden to prove that Radiocom was not a responsible bidder.

Radiocom, through counsel Victorino DLG. Torres, argued that the company is a responsible bidder, its bid was reasonable, and it properly completed the bid-schedules.