Bridge Security Services, Inc. v. Universidad de Puerto Rico en Carolina

Bridge Security Services, Inc. v. Universidad de Puerto Rico en Carolina

KLRA202400289, Tribunal de Apelaciones de Puerto Rico, Panel VI (June 10, 2024). Before Ortíz Flores, J. (President), Rivera Torres, J., Rivera Pérez, J. (Reporting Judge), and Campos Pérez, J. Administrative review of RFP 2024-003.

Relevant Facts

• The University of Puerto Rico Carolina campus issued RFP 2024-003 for private security services. Six companies submitted proposals with hourly rates ranging from $12.95 (Unique Security Corp.) to $14.23 (Genesis Security Services). Bridge Security Services bid $13.43/hour.

• On May 3, 2024, the University awarded the contract to Unique Security Corp. as the lowest bidder. The adjudication notice was transmitted via email (not certified mail) and stated that Unique Security was 'the lowest bidder that complies with specifications and requirements.'

• The adjudication notice was defective in multiple respects: it cited an incorrect 10-day appeal deadline per a repealed law instead of the current 20-day period under Law 38-2017, lacked a synthesis of the submitted proposals, and failed to identify defects in losing bidders' proposals or explain the decision criteria.

• Bridge Security requested reconsideration on May 13, 2024. When no response came within the required timeframe, it filed this appeal on June 3, 2024.

Legal Issues

• Whether the adjudication notice was fatally defective due to improper notification method and lack of adequate reasoning.

• Whether the defective notice deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

• Whether the appeal was premature because the defective notice never properly commenced the appeal period.

Positions of the Parties

• Bridge Security argued that the email notification violated the 2008 Regulation requiring certified mail, that the notice lacked required information (synthesis of offers, identification of defects), and that Unique Security did not meet the requirement of three-year operational existence.

• The University implicitly argued that current law authorizes email notification and that its adjudication was proper.

Decision of the Court and Reasons

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits.

The court found that while email notification was not inherently defective under current laws (Laws 38-2017 and 73-2019), the adjudication notice was fundamentally defective because it failed to include: a synthesis of the submitted proposals, identification of defects in losing bidders' proposals, and clear explanation of the decision criteria.

Under controlling precedent, a defective adjudication notice that lacks adequate reasoning violates due process and prevents the appeal period from beginning to run. The court emphasized that adjudication notices must be sufficiently detailed to enable appellate review of whether the agency acted within legal limits and exercised discretion reasonably. Because the defective notice never properly commenced the appeal period, Bridge Security's filing was technically premature, depriving the court of jurisdiction. The court indicated that upon proper notice with adequate reasoning, Bridge Security could refile its appeal.