List Of Exempt Steel Products Issued For 2022

On February 19, 2022, the Pennsylvania Department of General Services (DGS) issued the list of machinery and equipment steel products which are exempt for calendar year 2022 under the PA Steel Products Procurement Act. The list was published in Read more

Recent Commonwealth Court Decision Affirms Core Bidding Principles

A recent decision concerning a bid protest filed on a PennDOT contract re-affirmed core principles of public bidding and bid protests on Commonwealth contracts. In Sidelines Tree Service, LLC v. Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth Court considered an appeal from a Read more

PA Supreme Court Clarifies The Meaning Of "Cost" Under the PA Steel Products Procurement Act

The PA Steel Products Procurement Act was first enacted in 1978. At its core, the Act provides that any steel products used or supplied on a public works project in Pennsylvania must be U.S. steel products. Under the Act, a product Read more

Can A Public Owner Recover Legal Fees From A Bidder Who Loses A Challenge To A Bid Rejection?

Can a public entity include in its bid instructions the right to recover its legal fees from a bidder if the bidder's bid protest lawsuit is unsuccessful? In the course of providing advice recently to a client, I came across Read more

List Of Exempt Steel Products Issued For 2020

On June 27, 2020, the Pennsylvania Department of General Services (DGS) issued the list of machinery and equipment steel products which are exempt for calendar year 2020 under the PA Steel Products Procurement Act.  The list was published in Read more

•••••

Court Decisions

Third Circuit Affirms Decision On DRPA Bridge Contract But Reverses Judicial Award Of Contract To Low Bidder

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.

Read more

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Email
Posted on July 27, 2017 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Court Decisions, DRPA Comments Off on Third Circuit Affirms Decision On DRPA Bridge Contract But Reverses Judicial Award Of Contract To Low Bidder

Federal Judge Criticizes Mystery Procurement Practices Of Delaware River Port Authority

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

Linkedin Facebook Twitter Plusone Email
Posted on October 25, 2016 by Christopher I. McCabe, Esq. in Bid Responsiveness, Court Decisions, DRPA Comments Off on Federal Judge Criticizes Mystery Procurement Practices Of Delaware River Port Authority
WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com