PSS sued over typhoon shutters project

A company has sued the Public School System for allegedly illegally terminating their contract over typhoon shutters project in the CNMI schools.

Kautz Glass Co., through counsel Brien Sers Nicholas, asked the Superior Court to set aside the termination of its contract with PSS.

In its complaint for judicial review, Kautz requested the court to declare that defendant’s actions in terminating the contract were illegal.

Nicholas stated in the complaint that PSS had solicited competitive sealed bids for the service of a company to supply and install new typhoon shutters for various schools in the Commonwealth.

Nicholas said his client, along with other interested bidders, including Carpet Masters, submitted their bids for the project.

The lawyer said that based on the evaluations performed by PSS, Kautz was determined to be the “most responsible and responsive” bidder.

On April 28, 2005, plaintiff entered into a contract with PSS for the project.

On May 4 and 12, 2005, respectively, defendant received two protests, one on behalf of Eyun Ji Corp. and the other on behalf of Carpet Masters.

Based on said protests, PSS made a determination that plaintiff did not submit the lowest responsive bid and, therefore, the contract with plaintiff shall be terminated.

Nicholas said PSS then sent a letter formally notifying plaintiff of the termination of its contract.

Kautz filed its “notice of protest” questioning defendant’s determination to terminate the contract.

On July 29, 2005, plaintiff filed its “notice of appeal” with the Office of Public Auditor, appealing the PSS decision.

Nicholas said that on Oct. 27, 2005, OPA rendered its decision upholding PSS’s earlier decision in terminating the contract with Kautz.

OPA upheld the decision of PSS on the basis that plaintiff did not give any fact supporting why Carpet Masters cannot be or should not have been deemed responsive, the lawyer pointed out.

“OPA appears to have lost sight of the fact that plaintiff was appealing the legality of defendant’s action in terminating what was otherwise a binding and legally enforceable contract between plaintiff and defendant,” Nicholas asserted.

Plaintiff had not duty much less the burden, of presenting any evidence to support the termination in favor of Carpet Masters in its appeal, he said.

OPA, the lawyer noted, failed to determine whether or not defendant, by its own rules and regulations, can terminate the contract for its own convenience based on an alleged mistake.

Kautz, contrary to OPA’s decision, submitted substantial evidence to show that defendant’s actions in terminating plaintiff’s contract was illegal, he added.