DSD – Division of State Documents


TITLE: Electronic Commerce and Catalogue Services
MSBCA #: 2100
YEAR: 1999
CASE TYPE:
ISSUE: Cancellation of Solicitation
HEADNOTE: A solicitation may be canceled and all proposals (in this case the one remaining proposal) rejected if it is fiscally advantageous or otherwise in the States best interest.
5_456electronic2100commerceandcaralogueservices.pdf


MDHCD – MD Dept Housing and Community Development


TITLE: Housing and Development Software, LLC
MSBCA #: 2289
YEAR: 2002
CASE TYPE: Bid Protest
ISSUE: Rejecting of Proposals
HEADNOTE: Rejection of all proposals and resolicitation by the procuring agency is permissible where such action results from a reasonable decision by a control agency that the contract recommended for approval by the procuring agency should not be placed on the agenda of the Board of Public Works for approval.
MSBCA No. 2289, Housing & Development Software, 2002


TITLE: Housing and Development Software, LLC
MSBCA #: 2247
YEAR: 2001
CASE TYPE: Bid Protest
ISSUE: Negotiated Contracts (Competitive) – Basis for Award
HEADNOTE: The General Procurement Law and COMAR require that in negotiated procurements selection be based on a determination of the proposal or best and final offer which is the most advantageous to the State, considering price and other evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.
MSBCA No. 2247, Housing & Development Software, 2001


UMCP – University of Maryland College Park


TITLE: Trigen-Cinergy Solutions of College Park LLC
MSBCA #: 2315, 2316
YEAR: 2003
CASE TYPE: Contract Claim
ISSUE: Board of Contract Appeals – Jurisdiction
HEADNOTE: As one of a series of related agreements to secure long-term energy services for the University with financing provided by the Maryland Economic Development Corporation (MEDCO), MEDCO entered into a design and construction agreement (DCA) with Trigen-Cinergy Solutions of College Park LLC (Trigen-Cinergy) to provide construction services on behalf of the University. The Board, however, lacked jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the DCA because, when MEDCO is engaged in the financing of transactions through the issuance of bonds, the provisions of the General Procurement Law do not apply as the result of an exemption for MEDCO from the provisions of the General Procurement Law under Section 5-214(a) of Article 83A (MEDCO’s enabling legislation). This exemption from the General Procurement Law exists even though the University is the intended beneficiary of the DCA between MEDCO and Trigen-Cinergy.
MSBCA No. 2315, 2316, Trigen-Cinergy, 2003