Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Evidence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing officer admits late RFP submission over objections; attorneys dispute methodology
Summary
Attorneys sharply disputed whether a late RFP submission responded to a records request; one side said the document relied on only 73 calls over 2½ months and was methodologically weak, while proponent counsel said it was responsive. The hearing officer admitted the filing and allowed cross‑examination.
During an evidentiary exchange, Attorney Feingold argued the late RFP filing did not respond to the request and suffered from methodological deficiencies, saying the analysis relied on a small sample of about 73 calls collected over approximately 2½ months and omitted the broader data the request sought. Feingold said the filing 'muddies the water' and is unreliable due to its limited sample and methodology.
Attorney Langer responded that the submission addressed the specific request for the number of transfers delayed due to transportation and that the filing clearly explained its limited sample size and tracking method. Langer suggested admitting the relevant rate information and noted the RFP contains proprietary material that could be provided under seal if necessary.
Attorney Clyman said the proponent side was comfortable relying on the testimony in the record and that the rate proposal had already been explained on the record. The hearing officer ruled to allow the late filing, stating he would "give it its due weight," and permitted opposing counsel to directly examine the document’s preparer (referred to in the transcript as Mr. Durcheck / Durchek / Turchek) on the record.
The hearing officer offered parties a choice to proceed immediately with direct examination or take a short break; counsel elected a 15‑minute recess and the hearing was called off the record with instructions to return by 12:15.
The core dispute admitted into the record centers on whether a narrowly sampled, recent analysis is an adequate response to a broader records request about causes and durations of discharge delays; counsel on both sides reserved the right to explore those methodological questions during the authorized examination.
