Bid Protest Litigation
Under most state procurement codes, a state, county, school district, or other government agency, may only award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder. Bid protest litigation involves a contractor either challenging the proposed award of a government contract to the apparent low bidder. Or, an apparent low bidder defending a challenge brought by another bidder. Bid protest litigation is a high stakes affair. Wally Zimolong has successfully challenged proposed government contract awards and defending proposed government contract awards to his clients. Some examples of his successful bid protest litigation include:
$4,000,000 sewage treat plant. Quad Construction, Inc. v. Cinnaminson Sewerage Authority, et. al., Superior Court of New Jersey (2016). In this case, Wally's client was the odd man out and was the apparent second low bidder on a construction project for a new water treatment plant. The project in question was a lucrative $4,000,000 contract. The municipal authority announced that it proposed to award the contract to another bidder. Wally filed a petition for preliminary injunction claiming, among other things, that the apparent low bidder had failed to include certain mandatory items in its bid to the municipal authority. After a one-day trial, the Superior Court of New Jersey agreed with Wally's argument and enjoined the award of the contract because the low bidder failed to comply with the New Jersey Local Public Contracts Law.
$3,000,000 water tank painting project. Pro-Spec Painting, Inc. v. City of Trenton, Superior Court of New Jersey (2015). In this case, Wally's client was the apparent second low bidder. However, the City of Trenton announced its intention to award the contract to his client rather than the low bidder because the low bidder did not demonstrate the level of experience necessary to complete the project. The low bidder intervened and filed a petition for a preliminary injunction to stop the City from awarding the contract to Wally's client. Wally successfully argued that the public bid laws require an award not just to the lowest responsive bidder but the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.