6.1 Pre-qualifications
6.1.1 General
In general, the County does not provide for pre-qualification of offerors or providers of services except as enumerated below or otherwise provided in these regulations.
6.1.2 Bidder's List
6.1.2.1 The Director maintains a bidder's list. It is County policy to invite all interested parties to submit a written request to be placed on the bidder's list for their products or services. The written request should include the:
(a) Prospective offeror's name and address;
(b) Goods or services offered; and
(c) A statement of whether the firm seeks to qualify as an MFD contractor, including all required documentation.
6.1.2.2 The fact that a potential offeror is on the bidder's list does not establish the qualification of that offeror for the offering of any particular goods or services. Furthermore, the fact that the offeror is on the list does not preclude disqualification or rejection for lack of responsibility. The Director is under no obligation to engage in any review of the prospective offeror's qualifications or stated areas of interest; however, the Director may remove a potential offeror from the bidder's list upon determination of lack of responsibility for the area of interest indicated or upon determination of disqualification. Further, the Director may, as appropriate, remove potential offerors from the bidder's list when (A) the offeror has failed to respond to three successive solicitations, (B) the offeror has been on the list for two years without response, or (C) other circumstances exist to indicate that the offeror is not expected to respond to solicitations.
6.1.2.3 A potential offeror may respond to any solicitation, whether or not that offeror is on the bidder's list. The bidder's list is merely a mechanism for encouraging competition and ensuring wide dissemination of a solicitation document, but may not be construed as an exclusive prerequisite for responding to any solicitation.
6.2 Responsiveness; Minor Irregularity; Mistake in Bid
6.2.1 An offer that is determined to be non-responsive is rejected and must not be considered further in connection with the IFB unless specifically authorized under the competitive negotiation process. The determination of whether an offeror is responsive is made by the Director. When appropriate, the Director should solicit technical comments from the Using Department and consult with the Office of the County Attorney.
6.2.2 In determining responsiveness, the Director must consider, among other factors, the following:
6.2.2.1 Conformance with the terms and specifications of the IFB;
6.2.2.2 The nature and scope of conditions attached to the bid or proposal by the offeror;
6.2.2.3 Whether the deviation or failure to conform pertains to a material part of the solicitation; or
6.2.2.4 Any other deviations contained in the bid.
6.2.3 The Director may give an offeror an opportunity to cure any deficiency resulting from a minor irregularity in a bid or waive the deficiency, whichever is to the advantage of the County. The decision of the Director with respect to whether a defect is a minor irregularity is made in the sole discretion of the Director and is not subject to review.
6.2.4 If the Director knows or has reason to conclude that a mistake has been made, the Director may require a bidder to confirm the contents of a bid. Situations in which confirmation should be requested include obvious, apparent errors on the face of the bid or a bid unreasonably lower than the other bids submitted. If the bidder alleges a mistake, the Director may take the following actions which must be based on a written determination and finding:
6.2.4.1 If the mistake and the intended correction are clearly evident on the face of the bid, the bid must be corrected and may not be withdrawn. Examples of mistakes that are clearly evident on the face of the bid document are typographical errors, errors in extending unit prices, transposition errors, and arithmetical errors.
6.2.4.2 A bidder may be permitted to withdraw a low bid if:
(a) A mistake is clearly evident on the face of the bid but what was intended is not similarly evident; or
(b) The bidder submits objective proof that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that a mistake was made.
6.2.4.3 If the Director determines that no mistake was made, the bid may not be withdrawn.
6.2.5 When a Using Department Head is authorized to make a procurement (i.e. direct purchase), the Using Department Head is authorized to make the determination of responsiveness in the place of the Director pursuant to the criteria enumerated above.
6.3 Responsibility
6.3.1 The reputation, past performance, business and financial capability and other factors determine the responsibility of an offeror and the capability of the offeror to satisfy government's needs and requirements for a specific contract. The offeror has the burden of demonstrating affirmatively its responsibility in connection with a particular solicitation. The Director must determine whether an offeror is responsible for a particular prospective contract. A debarred potential offeror must automatically be considered non-responsible in connection with any particular solicitation.
6.3.2 The factors that may be considered in connection with a determination of responsibility include:
6.3.2.1 The ability, capacity, organization, facilities, and skill of the offeror to perform the contract;
6.3.2.2 The ability of the offeror to perform the contract or provide the services within the time specified without delay, interruption or interference;
6.3.2.3 The integrity, reputation and experience of the offeror, and its key personnel;
6.3.2.4 The quality of performance of previous contracts or services for the County or other entities. Past unsatisfactory performance, for any reason, is sufficient to justify a finding of non-responsibility;
6.3.2.5 The previous and existing compliance by the offeror with laws and ordinances relating to the contract or services;
6.3.2.6 The sufficiency of financial resources of the offeror to perform the contract or provide the services;
6.3.2.7 The certification of an appropriate accounting system, if required by the contract type. Advice should be obtained from the Department of Finance as to the accounting system required for the particular solicitation; and
6.3.2.8 A bid bond and the offeror's evidence of ability to furnish a performance bond may be considered in an overall determination of responsibility.
6.3.2.9 Past debarment by the County or other entity.
6.3.3 The Director may deny an award or modification of a contract to any offeror who is in default of payment of any money due the County.
6.3.4 Solicitations in which Using Departments make recommendations for awards to the Director must include a written recommendation with respect to the responsibility of the potential awardee. The Using Department should specify in detail the factual basis for its recommending a finding of responsibility of the potential awardee. In connection with this recommendation, the Using Department should review its files and the central performance file of the Department of General Services, Office of Procurement, with respect to the performance of the prospective awardee in previous contracts in the Using Department and the County, investigate performance of the prospective awardee in other contracts with the County and other entities to the extent practical, and ensure that the recommended awardee is not on a current Montgomery County suspension or debarment list.
6.3.5 Prospective offerors have the burden to demonstrate affirmatively their responsibility. An offeror may be requested at any time by the Director or the Using Department to provide additional information, references and other documentation and information that relate to the determination of responsibility. Failure to furnish requested information may constitute grounds for a finding of non-responsibility of the prospective offeror.
6.3.6 When a Using Department is authorized to make a procurement (i.e., direct purchase), the Using Department Head is authorized to make the determination of responsibility in the place of the Director pursuant to the criteria enumerated above.