Monday, August 12, 2002

Another Procurement Protest Corporate Express and Boise Cascade, two major office supply companies are protesting a recent bid award to Office Depot.  According to Corporate Express officials, the State could save $1.5 million by selecting their bid.  The office supply RFP conducted by the State is somewhat complex.  Companies bid specific prices for about 1500 items which are commonly used by the State and other jurisdictions who access the popular contract.  In addition, vendors provide a percentage off list price for other catalog items.  Typically, this will exceed 50%.  In addition, vendors are evaluated based on things like electronic ordering processes and delivery time.  Bids and contracts are managed by the Division of Purchasing.  Office Depot has had the state contract for the past five years, during which time, the number of agencies using the contract has grown incrementally.  Obviously, the incumbent has some advantages in this type of bid.  I have not evaluated the bid offerings, but will be following Doug Richins' (Chief Procurement Officer) decision in response to the protest. Article in the Standard Examiner Article in the Salt Lake Tribune Article in the Daily Herald 8:21:00 AM

Government Immunity The Utah Supreme Court issued a ruling a couple of days ago allowing municipalities that provide electrical services to be sued.  Potentially, this could open government up to additional law suits, particularly for services that might otherwise be provided by the private sector.  The suit originated when one John Laney was moving a thirty foot length of irrigation pipe which contacted municipal power lines causing Laney to be electrocuted.  The lawsuit states that the power lines were too low and should have been insulated.  In short, the decision was as follows: We hold that the 1987 amendment, declaring all acts of municipalities to be governmental functions, is unconstitutional as applied to municipalities operating electrical power systems. We reverse the summary judgment of the trial court and remand for a trial on the merits without any defense of governmental immunity. My interest in the case stems from the fact that State Risk Management is a division in the Department of Administrative Services and any case affecting government immunity potentially holds huge implications for the State.  Justice Leonard Russon wrote, "Governmental immunity applies when core government functions are involved.  But when municipalities do such things as operate golf courses, ski resorts, amusement parks, stores, electrical plants and other entities that could be run by private industry, government takes on the same risks and liabilities as private entities." He says municipalities, but I suppose that his opinion would also apply when the State operates a golf course or other similar function that might be provided by a private entity.  This issue has been hotly debated for years and I'm sure this will not be the end of it.  Justice Michael Wilkins issued a dissenting opinion, "In my view, the Legislature acted within its constitutional authority in setting forth the current scheme of sovereign immunity in Utah." Several years ago, I went to Boston with Judge Wilkins to attend a John Donovan seminar at MIT.  Donovan wrote a book entitled  The Second Industrial Revolution: Business Strategy and Internet Technology which discusses some of the things he espouses in his seminars which focus on producing high impact applications in a very short time frame. A Summary of Recent Supreme Court and Appellate Court Decisions related to Risk Management Article in the Deseret News on the Laney case In another recent immunity-related case, involving a man who was killed in a vehicle accident with a UTA bus, the Supreme Court upheld the immunity caps in place. 7:36:27 AM

© Copyright 2002 David Fletcher.