Below is OPA counsel Bruce Bright's response to a letter from Thom Gulyas of ACE Printing in Berlin in regard to the OPA selection of an election vendor.
See Ace Letter -  ACE Withdraws 

Via Email
Thom Gulyas
President
Ace Printing & Mailing

Re: 2025 Election Vendor RFP

Dear Mr. Gulyas:

On behalf of OPA, Inc., this responds to your self-styled “Formal Objection to Deviation from Published RFP Requirements.”

1. Providing client references for other HOA/Condo elections. The fact that this was not included expressly within the “four corners” of the RFP did not preclude the Election Committee (or OPA Board) from seeking this information. As I understand it, the Election Committee sought this information from all vendors who submitted proposals. Your company apparently elected not to provide this information, for whatever reasons you have. That is your company’s right; and OPA could rightfully consider that refusal in connection with evaluating your company’s proposal.

2. Demonstrating a functioning online voting portal prior to contract award. The RFP stated Elections must be conducted in both electronic and paper formats.” Submitting vendors were expected to be able to address and demonstrate their capability to conduct the (required) electronic/online aspect of the election process. To whatever extent you have that capability now, or do not have that capability now but plan to have it later, questions from OPA about this subject were and are valid and appropriate (and even a necessary part of any responsible analysis and consideration of your company’s proposal).

3. Ownership of ballot scanning equipment. Again, your company could elect to provide this information or not provide it. Whether such information is provided, reasons given (if any) for not providing it, and if it is provided, what the information is, would properly be considered in reviewing any proposal.

4. “Guarantees” about internal development status of custom voting systems and “undisclosed third-party partnerships.” Accurately stated, I believe the Committee has sought some further information and/or assurances as to your company’s future development of a platform for on-line voting, which you had indicated presently does not exist. This is appropriate (even necessary) information to seek from your company as an RFP submitter, in light of electronic voting being a critical part of the election. Again, the RFP stated expressly that “[e]lections must be conducted in both electronic and paper formats.”

5. “Public questioning of ACE’s business model and service offerings.” The comments made in open session concerned only non-proprietary aspects of ACE’s proposal, relative to fulfillment of the scope of necessary services for the election. There was no improper discussion of ACE’s “business model,” whatever that may mean to you.

6. Acceptance of an unsolicited, late bid. This was in the discretion of the Election Committee, and as I understand it, will not bear on the outcome in any event (your company was one of the two “finalists” under consideration; that bidder was not).

7. Alleged Violation of Confidentiality Requirements: Your proposal has never been disclosed publicly, and so far as I am aware, no proprietary information has been disclosed by OPA during this process. We are unaware as to sources that the Ocean Pines Progress may have had for its reporting on this matter; but in any event, your pricing in your proposal is not proprietary, in our view. Indeed, in the event you were selected as the vendor, that pricing and all other contract terms would have been subject to public disclosure, as stated in the RFP. It is also notable in this regard that, in publicizing your “formal objection” letter, you have personally publicized that same pricing information.

8. Please note that the RFP stated quite broadly that “OPA reserves the right to select any proposal on the basis of what is deemed in good faith to be in the best interest of OPA.” All information sought by OPA in relation to your proposal was appropriate information to be requested, obtained, and considered.

9. Please also note that, while actual contract negotiations can and should properly occur away from the public domain, deliberations by the OPA Board and/or Election Committee as to the selection of an election vendor (with whom to engage in contract negotiations), can properly occur in public, so long as RFP submitters’ proprietary information (to the extent any is contained in a proposal) is not improperly revealed.

10. Lastly, it should be emphasized that this is not a government contract procurement process. Your letter “reserves the right” to “file a formal bid protest.” There is no “formal bid protest” process that exists here – again, OPA is a private corporation, not a government entity. OPA’s RFP process is an informal and flexible process, which may vary depending on the particular context, but is broadly intended to solicit and receive proposals from potential service vendors, as contemplated in section 9.05 of the OPA bylaws. Although OPA takes the RFP process seriously and always seeks to handle it professionally and with due care, there are no technical, rigorous, statutory, regulatory, or formal requirements or procedures in this type of (private entity) RFP process. OPA (including the Election Committee) has acted in good faith in all respects, in accordance with the published RFP, and with due concern for the interests of all involved.

All of that being said, we understand from your letter that your company has withdrawn its proposal and no longer wishes to be considered for the 2025 election vendor contract. We will abide by that position you have taken, and will move forward appropriately on that basis.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns, and we thank your company for participating in the RFP process.

Very truly yours,

Bruce F. Bright