NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1079-20 IN THE MATTER OF ATLANTIC RECYCLING GROUP'S BID PROTEST OF AWARD FOR NJDOT SNOW PLOWING AND SPREADING WAIVER. ______________________________ Argued January 24, 2022 – Decided August 9, 2022 Before Judges Accurso and Rose. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Transportation. David L. Disler argued the cause for appellant Atlantic Recycling Group (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, PC, attorneys; David L. Disler, of counsel and on the briefs; Matthew J. Donohue, on the briefs). Ryne A. Spengler, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey Department of Transportation (Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ryne A. Spengler, on the brief). PER CURIAM Atlantic Recycling Group appeals from a final decision of the Department of Transportation to bypass its low bid on the 2020-21 snow plowing and spreading waiver contract. In Atlantic's telling, the Department refused to award Atlantic the contract based on a false claim involving "an exaggeration of a prior contract," where Atlantic "had the audacity to appeal the NJDOT's meritless attempt to cancel all of [Atlantic's] contracts over a simple misunderstanding on a poorly written, brand-new question." In actuality, the Department bypassed Atlantic's bid in accordance with a provision in the Request for Quotations advising all bidders their bids could be bypassed based on "a history of performance problems" demonstrated by "formal complaints and/or contract cancellations for cause" in accordance with the State's Standard Terms and Conditions. As the Department's decision to bypass Atlantic's bid was neither arbitrary nor capricious, complied with legislative policies and is amply supported by sufficient, competent and credible evidence in the record, we affirm. The essential facts are essentially undisputed and easily summarized, starting with Atlantic's bid on the contract lines the Department cancelled for cause. In January 2018, the Division of Purchase and Property issued a bid solicitation on behalf of the Department for snow plowing and spreading A-1079-20 2 services. The solicitation explained that bidders meeting minimum criteria for experience and equipment whose trucks were equipped with an onboard wetting system would receive preference in the evaluation process. Atlantic bid the contract by submitting a quote for several spreading price lines, answering "yes" to the question on the vendor equipment form asking if the bidder was "able to provide onboard wetting." When the Department learned after it had awarded Atlantic eight price lines that Atlantic's trucks were not equipped with onboard wetting equipment, it filed a formal complaint with the Division of Purchase and Property requesting all eight contracts be immediately terminated. The Division subsequently advised Atlantic of its intent to terminate the blanket purchase order awarding it …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals