Search Publications:
Construction OberView
October 2011
Unbalanced = Unresponsive
By: Eric Radz
In denying two appeals brought by Brawner Builder’s, Inc. (“Brawner”) against the State Highway Administration (“SHA”), the Maryland Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”) upheld a decision by SHA that an unbalanced bid submitted by a contractor was unresponsive.
The project in question involved bridge deck overlay and painting work for two bridges in Howard County, Maryland. Of the eight bids received, Brawner submitted the low bid, however, SHA deemed it to be materially unbalanced. This was due to Brawner’s bid including a charge of $1.00 or less on 47 of 51 items contained in the Schedule of Prices.
Click to continue...Court of Special Appeals Strikes Down Maryland Regulation Prohibiting Bidders From Challenging Whether an Entity is a Certified MBE
By: Jackson B. Boyd
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently decided in Salisbury University v. Joseph M. Zimmer, Inc. that COMAR 21.11.03.14 is invalid. This procurement regulation prohibits a bidder from filing a protest to challenge whether an entity is a certified minority business enterprise (MBE). The Court found this regulation to be in conflict with sections 15-215 and 15-217 of the State Finance & Procurement Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, which collectively allow a bidder to protest the qualifications of a bidder or the determination of the successful bidder.
As background, Salisbury University issued a solicitation for a replacement chiller. Joseph M. Zimmer, Inc. submitted the apparent low bid. The University’s procurement officer, however, rejected Zimmer’s bid, determining that the subcontractor Zimmer proposed using to meet the MBE participation goal for the contract was not certified as a minority business.
Click to continue...Bid Price Below Minimum Cost is Reason for Rejection
By: Eric Radz
The Maryland Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”) recently sustained an appeal brought by PDI-Sheets Construction, Inc. (“PDI”) against the State Highway Administration (“SHA”) on the basis that PDI was the lowest responsive bidder.
The relevant project involved miscellaneous roadway structure repairs throughout Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles and St. Mary’s Counties. The SHA’s Invitation for Bid (“IFB”) contained Special Bidding Instructions (“SBI”) which alerted the contractor that minimum unit prices had been established for many of the bid items. The SBI also declared that if a bid price was below the minimum unit price for any item, then the entire bid would be deemed non-responsive and, thus, rejected.
Click to continue...
