The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed a N.J. federal district court decision which found that that the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) had acted improperly in rejecting the low bidder for a painting contract for the Commodore Barry Bridge. My original post on the DRPA case can be found here.
In 2016, the DRPA rejected Alpha Painting & Construction Company, Inc.’s low bid and awarded the contract to Corcon, Inc., the second low bidder. After its protest was denied, Alpha sued the DRPA to rescind the award to Corcon. The district court found that the DRPA’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, and ordered the DRPA to award the contract to Alpha. The DRPA appealed.
On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed with the district court, finding in a lengthy opinion that the DRPA’s decision to reject the low bidder was irrational, arbitrary, and capricious. However, the Third Circuit held that district court went too far in directing the DRPA to award the contract to Alpha. Instead, the Third Circuit remanded the case for entry of a more limited injunction, stating:
Here, DRPA arbitrarily removed Alpha from contention for the Phase 2 contract. Accordingly, Alpha should be restored to competition and DRPA should evaluate Alpha’s bid and affirmatively determine, per its guidelines, whether Alpha, the lowest bidder, is a “responsible” contractor.
A recent federal court decision rescinding a $17.8 million bridge painting contract award to the second low bidder ripped the cover off Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) procurement practices that were “shrouded in mystery and obscured from public scrutiny.” Although applying New Jersey law, the reasons underlying the decision of Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for New Jersey are equally applicable to Pennsylvania bidding disputes.
In May 2016, the DRPA issued a bid for a painting contract for the Commodore Barry Bridge. Seven bids were received. Alpha Painting & Construction Company was the low bidder, with a price of $17,886,000; Corcon, Inc., was second with a price just $10,200 higher. Six weeks later, the DRPA rejected Alpha’s bid as “not responsible” for two reasons: Alpha’s bid was missing OSHA 300 forms, and Alpha did not have reported EMF (experience modification factors) scores that reflect a contractor’s workers’ compensation experience on prior jobs. The DRPA then awarded the contract to Corcon.
After the DRPA denied Alpha’s protest, Alpha sued the DRPA for an injunction rescinding the award to Corcon and ordering an award to Alpha. After three days of testimony, Judge Hillman determined that the DRPA’s stated reasons for the rejection of Alpha’s bid were arbitrary and capricious, and ordered the DRPA to award the contract to Alpha. Read more