BID PROTEST LETTERS RELATIVE TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

BID PROTEST LETTERS
RELATIVE TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
REGARDING THE AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 2013-B-1,
VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS FOR GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE
ROADWAY AND TOLL PLAZA
·
Swarco Traffic Americas, Inc., dated September 18, 2012; and,
·
Skyline Industries, Inc., dated September 18, 2012.
SWARCO TRAFFIC AMERICAS INC.
September 18, 2012
District Secretary, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
Subject: Protest of Staff Recommendation by Swarco Traffic Americas of Contract No. 2013-B-1, Variable
Message Signs for Golden Gate Bridge Roadway & Toll Plaza
Dear District Secretary:
Recommendation: Pursuant to Section VIII, BID PROTEST PROCEDURES of the Procurement Manual,
SWARCO Traffic Americas (STA), hereby submits its protest per Sections B.1, C.1 and D.1 of the
Procedures. STA requests that the Board of Directors for the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and
Transportation District reject all bids and have staff perform an effective, fair and efficient rebidding
process that seeks a much broader range of benefits than those called for in the first set of specifications,
including the option of rear or front access on the Variable Message Signs (VMS) depending upon the
location, size and purpose of each sign.
Background: SWARCO Holdings has been in business for more than forty-years making transportation
safety materials, products, lighting and software solutions. In fact, SWARCO makes more than 4,000
VMS per year ranging from quite small signs for pedestrian applications to extremely large sign faces in
excess of 9’H x 90’W for wide overhead multi-lane applications. Our company’s signs are known
worldwide for their endurance, precision legibility, and energy efficiency. In over forty countries, some as
cold as near the Arctic Circle to the extreme heat of the Saudi Arabian deserts, SWARCO’s signs have
consistently performed reliably with little or no aging effect of the LED light sources and other electrical
components. STA, headquartered in Sunnyvale, California along with our new VMS assembly site in
Anaheim, California looks forward to installing what SWARCO and many of its clients believe are the
finest VMS in the World.
From the beginning of STA’s review of the specifications, it was clear that staff could have performed
more due diligence on today’s State of the Art Technology in VMS design and functionality, and also take
into stronger consideration the goals for safety and active lane management clearly articulated in the
Nation’s MAP-21 Transportation Act, signed into law by the President in July 2012. As specified, none of
the 12 signs will accommodate any regulatory images, international symbols or text in the Federal or State
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Specifying a product that should last the next 15-20 years
with only amber letters and numbers prevents the District from posting regulatory messages associated
with new tolling requirements, lane closures, HOV regulations and many important alerts. Finally, in areas
of dense fog, such as the San Francisco Bay, staff should have investigated “full color” VMS as called for
in the Fog Detection and Warning System (FDWS) used by Caltrans in District 6 near Fresno to assist in
the early notification to drivers to be alert to fog, cone zones and other incidents.
Given what STA considers the shortfalls and lack of forward-looking potential of this investment, we still
submitted our highly competitive bid that could save the District nearly $200,000 including an exceptional
warranty, we also submitted a request for “Approved Equals, Modifications or Clarifications” on August
13, one day prior to the August 14 due date. As stated in Section A. of the Bid Protest Procedures it is
the “policy of the GGBHTD to consider fully and adjudicate protests filed by prospective bidders or bidders
relating to the District’s bidding procedure, contract specifications or award of contract”. STA primarily
bases its protest on staff’s failure to follow its adjudication process in a fair and timely manner which put
STA at an extreme disadvantage to other potential bidders as well as the sole source requirement for a
brand name LED.
SWARCO TRAFFIC AMERICAS INC.
440 N.orth Wolfe Road., Plug & Play Tech Center, Sunnyvale, CA 94085, USA
T. +1- 408-524-3051 M.+1.408.904.9366 E. frank.harder@swarco.com
www.swarco.com/americas
1/4
SWARCO TRAFFIC AMERICAS INC.
PROTEST
B. Filing of Protests; Content and Time Requirements.
1. Pre-Protest Procedures. Bidders will be required to utilize any procedures in the specifications for
Approved Equals or requests for clarifications prior to submitting a protest. If the bidder disagrees with the
District’s decision on such requests, the bidder may then avail itself of the bid protest procedures. Protests
shall be filed within the specified time limits set forth in the specifications, in accordance with this section.
Response: In the interest of delivering the highest quality product for the District and residents of
California, STA did submit several approved equals or clarifications on August 13. On August 14, STA
was notified that its request had been received and that it would be responded to in the form of an
addendum to be issued on August 21 or by directly responding to the “potential bidder”. On August 22,
STA notified the District Secretary’s staff of the following by electronic mail:
“We have not seen any response, nor does it show anything on the website, on our request for approved
equals, modifications or clarifications. We need to know if we should proceed with our bidding process.
th
Since it is due next Tuesday the 28 and will take time to prepare, is there any way to find out if/or how we
should proceed? Thank you for your assistance.” Matt Huning
STA believed it was at a disadvantage because District Staff included Approved Equals for another bidder,
but no mention of STA’s requests was included, nor was STA notified directly. STA then concluded it was
not an approved equal, and decided to continue as a potential bidder, but also sent the following
electronic email on August 23 seeking clarification:
“Dear Ms. Eells, I saw that Addendum #2 for the Variable Message signs was released. In reading
through it, I saw that our product was not included. Could you please direct me and my email to the
appropriate person so that I may find out where we may have been deficient in our information requesting
to be added as an approved equal. Thank you very much for your assistance.” Matt Huning
On August 23, STA received the email below:
From: Jan Tarantino [mailto:JTarantino@goldengate.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:26 PM
To:
Huning, Matt; Elizabeth Eells
Cc:
Elizabeth Eells; Marissa G. Ramos
Subject: RE: Contract NO. 2013 -B-1 Variable Message Signs
“Dear Mr. Huning: You are correct. I will be sending you a letter, including an explanation, either later
today or sometime early tomorrow.”
With this correspondence, STA was certain it would receive an explanation so that it could agree, disagree
or file a protest based upon restrictive specifications as called for in B.1 and C.1 of the Bid Protest
Procedures, but District staff failed to send an explanation to STA. This portion of STA’s protest is based
upon Staff’s promise to provide an explanation of its decision and none was provided putting STA at an
extreme disadvantage.
C. Protests Based Upon the Specifications.
1. Submission of Protest; Initial Procedures. Protests based upon restrictive specifications or alleged
improprieties in the bidding procedure or contract specifications, which are apparent or reasonably should
have been discovered prior to bid opening, shall be filed in writing with the Office of Primary Interest not
later than five (5) calendar days before bid opening. The protest must clearly specify in writing the grounds
and evidence on which the protest is based.
Response: On August 13, STA submitted its “Request for Approved Equals, Modifications or
Clarifications”. One of STA’s proposed modifications in its August 13 Request was:
1.1. Regarding Technical Specification Section 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6: Specific Sign Dimensions (Request for
modification of specification)
STA position: Defining the display size with a fixed value for pixel pitch and pixel size may hinder
improvement for resolution, legibility and optical performance at all. Also definition for a specific LED
SWARCO TRAFFIC AMERICAS INC.
440 N.orth Wolfe Road., Plug & Play Tech Center, Sunnyvale, CA 94085, USA
T. +1- 408-524-3051 M.+1.408.904.9366 E. frank.harder@swarco.com
www.swarco.com/americas
2/4
SWARCO TRAFFIC AMERICAS INC.
manufacturer and LED technology may result in unneeded restriction in terms of high efficiency and high
quality of LEDs from other well-respected manufacturers. Any improvement that can be achieved her in
reduction of power results in less degradation and extension of life time of LED.
For all that reasons Swarco requests modification of requirement regarding following items:
• Define a range of pixel pitch from 1” to 2” equal in horizontal and vertical orientation.
• Do not specify a specific manufacturer or brand name for LEDs.
• Limit the LED current for amber LEDs to a maximum of 25% of max. LED-current from
datasheet to achieve long life and reduce degradation.
In the first request for modification above, STA noted that the pixel pitch for all 12 signs was required to be
exactly 1.875 inches. STA believes this restrictive specification was clearly written around the existing
supplier’s product. STA makes a range of several different pixel pitches based upon the size, orientation,
location and intended use of the sign. Because there were three different types of applications and sizes
of signs, STA recommended a minor change to allow a range of pixel pitches between 1 inch and 2
inches. STA believed this would have provided the District optimum legibility. District staff did not
approve of the requested modification, and staff indicated they would provide an explanation by August
23 or early on August 24, to date no explanation has been provided to STA. However, District staff did
approve another pixel pitch of 1.75 inches as requested by Daktronics. In fact, to the best of STA’s
knowledge, all modifications approved were granted to the newly “approved equal” signs by Daktronics.
STA was not granted an explanation as to why the District would not allow a range from 1 to 2 inches for
pixel pitch. This portion of STA’s protest is based upon “Restrictive Specifications”.
In the second request for modification above, STA requested the District not to specify a specific
manufacturer or brand name for LEDs. District staff specified that only Avago LEDs would be authorized
for the project. With NO APPROVED EQUAL staff created an unfair advantage for certain manufacturers
and prevented a competitive bidding environment for what could be considered the most critical
component of an LED VMS, the LED light source. This portion of STA’s protest is based upon
“Improprieties in the Contract Specifications”. While STA discovered this impropriety and brought it to
staff’s attention, staff did not change the requirement in the specification, nor did staff provide STA any
explanation for requiring Avago as the only brand LED.
D. Protests Based Upon Contract Award.
1. Submission of Protest: Initial Procedures.
The Recommendation section in the August 14 report deems “STA’s” bid as Non-Responsive. STA takes
strong exception to being labeled as non-responsive in this entire process. The District Secretary notified
Mr. Huning of STA stating on August 23: “Dear Mr. Huning: You are correct. I will be sending you a
letter, including an explanation, either later today or sometime early tomorrow.” District Staff never
addressed STA’s Request for modifications. This portion of STA’s protest claims that STA was not NonResponsive.
1.
The Summary section in the August 14 report shows that the STA bid is approximately 48% lower
than the bid that staff is recommending. STA’s bid of $213,800.23 saves the District $199,142.27 from the
$412,942.50. Not included in the staff report was that SWARCO is providing the 5-year extended
warranty for just one-dollar ($1) as compared to $30,000 and $34,000 for each of the other bidders; a true
test of STA’s tried and tested solutions. This portion of STA’s protest claims that the District is spending
nearly twice what it should be for an inferior overall solution to the District and motorists’ needs.
2.
The Summary section in the August 14 report indicates that STA submitted two bids with identical
pricing. What the staff report did not indicate was that one bid was for the limited solution of Amber “only”
letters and numbers, and that STA’s second bid titled Amber “Plus” provided superior added functionality
at no additional cost of being able to display regulatory images, symbols or text as contained in the State
MUTCD in color as well as amber letters and numbers. This portion of STA’s protest is based on that staff
did not do due diligence in specifying a modern solution for this critically important project that must:
SWARCO TRAFFIC AMERICAS INC.
440 N.orth Wolfe Road., Plug & Play Tech Center, Sunnyvale, CA 94085, USA
T. +1- 408-524-3051 M.+1.408.904.9366 E. frank.harder@swarco.com
www.swarco.com/americas
3/4
SWARCO TRAFFIC AMERICAS INC.
“communicate information to alert drivers about AET and must be programmable to provide different
messages depending on differing conditions.”
3.
The Summary section in the August 14 report indicates that: “In particular, STA’s product features
an access from the back of sign only and not the front of the sign as per Bid document specifications. The
District had already rejected this rear access only feature before the due date in response to a request
from STA. The rejection was based upon the fact that the District is going to be using existing mounting
brackets and support structures for the new signs being purchased under this procurement. All of the
structures and support brackets are designed for front access signs, and will not allow for rear access
signs as submitted by STA”.
District staff indicates that STA’s product only features access from the back of sign. This is not a true
statement, as STA makes front and rear access signs, and just finished a demonstration to Caltrans
Headquarters and District 4 staff of three different models of front access VMS on September 12. STA
was NOT given any explanation for its requested modification, and in fact Staff states: “STA’s request was
based upon the fact that the District is going to be using existing mounting brackets and support
structures”. This was not described anywhere in writing. STA makes front or rear access to its signs, and
firmly believes that having access to the rear is superior for the District in that the nine signs can be easily
accessed from the roof, keeping staff behind the signs and not on a lift truck blocking the signs and the toll
lanes to access the signs for any service purposes and for safety reasons. If staff had taken the time to do
more due diligence on the benefits to workers and motorist safety, and eliminating the need for lift trucks
to block lanes to service the signs, they would see the net benefit of investing in minor structural
modifications instead of paying an additional $199,000 for the front access sign. This portion of STA’s
protest is based upon the fact that STA requested a modification for rear access, and because District
staff promised an explanation but never delivered its decision. STA chose to bid the project on the safer
solution as described in its August 13 Request.
Conclusion: There are many reasons why STA deserves this award; the Company’s experience, quality
and precision optics of its signs, the significant savings to the District of almost $200,000, the importance
of having the flexibility to provide more than amber letters and numbers, no need for a front glass
polycarbonate panel that is subject to yellowing and heaters to keep the panel from fogging, the extremely
low power consumption and low cost to operate and more. SWARCO Traffic Americas is prepared to
provide the best combination of rear access or front access VMS, and looks forward to the opportunity to
rebid on this project.
Sincerely,
Frank Harder CEO
SWARCO TRAFFIC AMERICAS Inc.
Member of the Executive Board
Vice President / Projects, Services & Sales Region 3
SWARCO AG Blattenwaldweg 8 A-6112 Wattens / Austria
SWARCO TRAFFIC AMERICAS Inc.
c/o Plug and Play Tech Center
440 N. Wolfe Road, Sunnyvale, CA 94085 - USA
T. +1- 408 524 3051 M. +1-408 904 9366
E. frank.harder@swarco.com
SWARCO TRAFFIC AMERICAS INC.
440 N.orth Wolfe Road., Plug & Play Tech Center, Sunnyvale, CA 94085, USA
T. +1- 408-524-3051 M.+1.408.904.9366 E. frank.harder@swarco.com
www.swarco.com/americas
4/4