STATE OF ILLINOIS
PROCUREMENT POLICY BOARD
David Vaught, Chairman
Members: Michael Bass, Ed Bedore, Ricardo Morales, Diego Ferrer
511 WEST CAPITOL, SUITE 102, SPRINGFIELD, IL 62704
Telephone (217) 785-3988 Fax (217) 557-9927 TTY (888) 642-3450
PPB
PROPOSED CONTRACT REVIEW
DATE OF REVIEW: October 6, 2009 DATE OF AWARD: September 22, 2009
REFERENCE NUMBER: 2250
PURCHASING AGENCY: Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
USING AGENCY: N/A
CONTACT PERSON: Nancy Ufert-Fairless TELEPHONE: 618-650-3187
TITLE: Vehicle Lease Program for Intercollegiate Athletic
PROCUREMENT APPROACH: RFP
TOTAL VALUE: $96,876.00
LENGTH OF TERM: 10/01/2009 – 09/30/2012 (36 months)
VENDOR SELECTED FOR AWARD: Bommarito Honda Superstore
NO. OF UNSUCCESSFUL VENDORS: 7
OVERVIEW:
On October 6, 2009, the Procurement Policy Board placed the Southern Illinois University Edwardsville award for Vehicle Lease Program for
Intercollegiate Athletic under review. The Procurement Policy Board is concerned with the policy of offering a sponsorship package to prospective
vendors that is not expressly identified in the RFP process. It was unclear in the RFP if the vendor would be required to pay for the sponsorship
package or if the package was being provided by the University as an incentive to prospective bidders. During the review it was also determined that
bidders responded with an array of offers relative to undefined lease requirements. The findings that some vendors provided offers that could have
been deemed non-responsive caused concern over whether the vendors were able to put their best foot forward.
STAFF CONSIDERATION:
Staff requested copies of all documents relating to this purchase, including the requesting department’s requisition, procurement business cases, the
current and proposed contracts, evaluation documents and any form or decision memo related to the consideration and approval of the proposed
contract. It was not stated in the RFP if the vendor would be required to pay for the sponsorship package or if the package was being provided by the
University as an incentive to prospective bidders. That caused concern in that competition would be negatively impacted.
The University released an RFP that offered sponsorship packages (free advertising) to prospective vendors and did not score it as a part of the RFP
evaluation process. The University stated to the Board that the sponsorship packages were meant to encourage potential vendors to bid. As no
vendors elected to participate in the free advertising offered through the sponsorship packages, it is the opinion of Staff that the vendors also
misunderstood the nature of the sponsorship packages.
The University subsequently cancelled the award due to the manufacturer being unable to extend credit to the University due to payment history from
universities in general. The next responsive and responsible bidder exceeded the department’s approved budget resulting in non-award. In
examining this event it was determined the University did not express any disposition for related credit, which having done so would have clearly
influenced the type and availability of leases offered. It also seems unclear what the vendors understood regarding flexibility in their offers
considering only two of six offers were at the limit of the requested terms. The University was required to compute the cost of a mileage penalty in
order to extrapolate the awarded offer to full term even though the offered lease duration was not extended to full term. This was factored in order to
issue the award so that it maintained budget limits for the department. Staff does not interpret the RFP having this flexibility.
PROPOSED POLICY RECOMMENDATION:
The Board recommends that CPO’s re-enforce the requirements for specifications that are abundantly clear toward representing the end users’ needs.
Express language regarding terms and conditions is critical to the procurement’s mission. When aspects of procurement are meant to enhance the
return on the procurement and are not considered to be essential; those things should be expressly stated and should appear in the documents in a
manner that doesn’t create a perception that these enhancements are part of the transaction itself.
AGENCY COMMENTS:
The university agrees that using more descriptive language in the solicitation would have clarified the needs of the using department as well as
directed the vendor with information allowing them to put their best offers forward.
Page 60 of 66
