Guam – During the hearings before the Guam OPA over the past 6 months, Assistant Guam Attorney General Ben Abrams has expressed deep reservations about the fairness and legality of Data Management Resources’ [DMR] bid for a Point-of-Sale [POS] contract with GovGuam.
Those reservations can be heard in the audio recordings of the hearings in this procurement appeal which began last May.
ABRAMS: “There are a lot of strange things that happened in connection with this procurement. Things that I’ve never seen in my professional involvement with procurement matters and neither has Mr. Weisenberger.”
Abrams made that remark at a pre-hearing conference last May after DMR’s bid for the POS contract was rejected, and the company filed a protest.
The audio files of DMR’s procurment appeal are available for anyone to review on the Public Auditor’s Website HERE or below.
OPA-PA-12-007 Request for Proposal No. RFP/DOA-014-11 Point of Sale
Appellant: Data Management Resources, LLC
» Pre-Hearing Conference Audio Record
» Motions Hearing Audio Record Part 1 (07.02.12)
» Motions Hearing Audio Record Part 2 (07.03.12)
» Formal Hearing Audio (10.22.12)
» Formal Hearing Audio Record Part I (11.26.12)
» Formal Hearing Audio Record Part II (11.26.12)
» Formal Hearing Audio Record Part III (11.26.12)
At that initial May Conference, Abrams announced he intended to call as many as 8 or 9 witness, which brought on laughter, although he said he was serious.
ABRAMS: “We’re estimating at this point 8 or 9 witnesses … [Laughter] “This is like JFK” [laughter] … It could be bigger than that. “Really?” Yea. When I say that we’re evaluating why this first counter offer was made, it looks like a can of worms to me. And it may even be in excess of the 9 witness I’m looking at right now.”
Then, at the next hearing, a motions hearing on July 2ed, Abrams spoke of the areas of concern that the AG’s office has with the procurement.
ABRAMS: “One of them involves, I’ll be frank with you, involves a first counter offer in late September of last year that appears to be unauthorized and unsupported. Its more than just unauthorized. We have to understand the full story on why that counter offer was made. You know, it may not just be the error of the Government. There maybe more to it than meets the eye.”
out: meets the eye.”
But Abrams biggest concern was the fiber optic cable between DMR’s Hagatna office to the GovGuam computer data center, 2 blocks away.
ABRAMS: “What is critical is this access to key procurement data which could influence the outcome of a bid. and i know of no situation in the world where one of the bidders has a fiber optic cable with unrestricted, uncontrolled, no log in, no log out access to the gsa procurement file.”
out: gsa procurement file.”
That fiber link, said Abrams gave DMR an unfair advantage in the procurement process.
ABRAMS: “There is no precedent on the face of this planet where a procurement in any jurisdiction where one of the bidders has a fiber optic cable to all of the sensitive and off limits data that no bidder should be allowed to have.”
And while DMR the sole bidder on the contract, Abrams charged that there was another potential bidder. He says the Bank of Guam wanted a shot at the GovGuam Point-of-Sale contract, but BOG was forced to pull out.
ABRAMS: “We’re prepared to call witnesses to show that the Bank of Guam was unfairly and unjustly denied access to baseline data that they needed to develop a bid. and by wrongfully excluding this data from them they [DMR] forced Bank of Guam to drop out and not to make a bid.”
Abrams said that the Guam Attorney General sought not just to have DMR’s appeal dismissed, but to vacate the procurement. And he said he could prove that if the Attorney General were allowed to call their witnesses, and present their case.
ABRAMS: “I have been personally accused by Mr. Taitano of defamation. I’m here to tell you that my character is not to defame anybody. I’m telling it like it is. If it rubs him the wrong way, I just ask them, the appellant, to sit tight until we have the chance to put on evidence to show that every word in our motion to vacate the procurement and our motion to dismiss the appeal is in good faith and entirely accurate.”
DMR and the Governor’s office have reached a separate agreement on the Point-of-Sale contract, making DMR procurement appeal mute.
But the Attorney General still wants to call its witnesses and make its case. They have asked the OPA to make a Special Appearance, a motion which DMR opposes.
If the OPA allows the AG to continue, the case goes on. If not, it goes away.