West Palm Beach commission finds procedural errors in tennis RFP; rejects procurement official's denial of protest 4-1

The West Palm Beach City Commission on Feb. 17 voted 4-1 to reject the procurement official's decision denying a protest filed by local operator Let's Play Tennis over the award of operations contracts for the city's tennis centers. Commissioners said the record shows evaluators applied scoring considerations that were not included in the request for proposals and relied on financial figures not expressly tied to the project.

Let's Play Tennis cofounder Cameron Lickled told the commission the appeal turned on a single question: "Was the RFP applied as written?" He argued evaluators considered non-RFP factors — including brand recognition and an organization's net assets — and cited an unexplained scoring anomaly in which a reviewer gave a high score for a park despite no proposal being submitted for that site. Lickled asked the commission to deem the USTA Florida proposal nonresponsive or to reject the procurement official's denial and grant the appeal.

Donald Lehi, the city's procurement official, defended his review of the 22-page protest and the selection record, saying his review found "no evidence of a legal or procedural error committed and certainly none that would have resulted in the selection of Let's Play Tennis." He emphasized the difference between minimum submission requirements and evaluation criteria and said, in his review, correcting alleged scoring differences would not have produced the protester as the successful bidder.

Commission discussion centered on two recurring concerns raised in the protest and by commissioners reviewing the record: whether committee members relied on "brand prestige" (reputation of USTA) not listed in the RFP and whether financial statements or net-asset figures unconnected to project commitments were used as de facto scoring criteria. President Lambert said documentation provided to the commission, including an executive director's letter from USTA Florida, and the evaluation notes merited a finding that evaluators relied, at least in some respects, on factors outside the RFP.

After debate, President Lambert moved to "reject the procurement official's written response denying the protest based upon procedural errors of introduction of scoring factors not included in the RFP and reliance on financial figures not tied to the project." The amended motion passed on a 4-1 vote. The commission's decision was recorded for the procurement file as required by the city code.

The ruling does not itself name a replacement award. The city attorney explained the commission's role under Sec. 66-151 of the procurement code is to determine whether legal or procedural errors occurred in the solicitation record; if the commission finds an error that, when corrected, would have resulted in a different award, the commission must reject the procurement official's denial of the protest. The city attorney also noted that any further step (including cancellation or re-solicitation) must be documented in the procurement file and follow the code and Florida law.

Local advocates and a nonprofit partner, First Serve, had urged the commission to favor a local operator who would invest in youth mentorship programs at the courts. Public commenter Lola Tureczyk raised separate concerns about an unsigned protest, potential cone-of-silence violations, and alleged score-sheet alterations during the selection meeting; the commission did not resolve those particular allegations in open session but recorded the decision on the protest.

Next steps will be handled by city procurement and the city attorney's office to translate the commission's findings into written findings for the record and determine any corrective action permitted under the procurement code. The commission's formal written decision will be filed with the city clerk.