COR3 RFP Evaluation Flaws: Lessons from a Supreme Court Decision on Government Contracting

Introduction

The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Puerto Rico Central Office for Recovery, Reconstruction and Resiliency (COR3) Request for Proposal (RFP) process highlights the critical importance of fairness and transparency in government contracting. The RFP in question, issued on October 1, 2021, sought to hire a firm to provide technical and advisory services for disaster reconstruction projects in Puerto Rico. However, inconsistent evaluations and a lack of compliance led to the cancellation of the award after a contentious legal battle.This landmark case underscores the legal challenges that businesses may face when bidding for government contracts, particularly when evaluation criteria are not applied uniformly.

What Was the COR3 RFP About?

The RFP, titled "Technical and Advisory Services, Programs and Project Management Office", was issued by COR3 to procure services in line with FEMA requirements. The bidding process included several notable firms, such as:

• Hill International Inc.

• Innovative Emergency Management Inc. (IEM)

• Accenture P.R., LLC.

To ensure transparency, COR3 required all bidders to submit Addendum C, detailing:

1. Active or inactive government contracts.

2. Subcontractor relationships with Puerto Rican government agencies.

3. A certification of compliance with conflict-of-interest rules.

Non-compliance with Addendum C was explicitly stated as grounds for disqualification.

The Dispute: Hill vs. Accenture

Initially, COR3's Evaluation Committee recommended Hill International Inc. as the best-qualified firm, scoring 78.211%. Accenture and IEM followed with lower scores of 57.688% and 55.3%, respectively. However, COR3’s Board of Directors later disqualified Hill, citing:

• Undisclosed Prior Contracts

  Hill’s subcontractor, Tidal Basin, allegedly failed to disclose contracts with another public corporation in Puerto Rico.

• Potential Conflict of Interest

  A former executive of the public corporation had ties to Tidal Basin.

Despite these findings, Accenture—whose proposal also failed to fully comply with Addendum C—was awarded the contract. This decision triggered legal challenges from both Hill and IEM.

Supreme Court Findings

The case eventually reached Puerto Rico's Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals upheld COR3’s decision. The Supreme Court found several critical flaws in the evaluation process:

1. Accenture’s Non-Compliance

   • Accenture failed to disclose subcontractor relationships, a key requirement of Addendum C. This omission mirrored the grounds used to disqualify Hill, yet COR3 did not apply the same standard to Accenture.

2. Inconsistent Evaluations

   • The Court emphasized the need for uniform application of criteria. If Hill’s omissions warranted disqualification, the same rationale should have applied to Accenture. The Court called this discrepancy an

     “abuse of discretion” and a failure of transparency.

3. Flawed Decision-Making

   • The Supreme Court determined that COR3’s decision-making process was not

     “transparent nor objective,” ultimately revoking the RFP and canceling the award.

     ---

Key Lessons for Businesses

The COR3 case serves as a cautionary tale for firms bidding on government contracts. Here are the top takeaways:

1. Compliance is Critical

Government RFPs demand strict adherence to submission requirements. Missing details—even inadvertently—can lead to disqualification or legal challenges.

2. Uniform Standards Are Essential

Public entities must evaluate all bidders consistently. Businesses should document inconsistencies during the evaluation process and seek legal counsel if discrepancies arise.

3. Legal Recourse is an Option

Companies that face unfair treatment in the bidding process have the right to challenge decisions through administrative reviews or court proceedings.

How This Affects Government Contracting

Although the Supreme Court's ruling is specific to COR3, its broader implications affect businesses across Puerto Rico and beyond:

• Public entities must ensure that their evaluation processes are transparent, fair, and objective.

• Companies bidding on government contracts should be vigilant in documenting compliance with all requirements.

For businesses operating in Puerto Rico, Virginia, Washington, D.C., or at the federal level, this case highlights the importance of working with experienced legal counsel to navigate government procurement processes.

What MZLS Can Do for You

At MZLS, we specialize in government contracting law, representing clients in Puerto Rico, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and the federal spectrum. Whether you’re preparing an RFP proposal or challenging an unfair decision, our team has the expertise to guide you through every step.