arco sanzari appeal
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
1/41
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYAPPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1649-10T21
A-1650-10T2A-1804-10T2
VANAS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CITY OF JERSEY CITY and ARCOELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,
t/d/b/a ARCO CONSTRUCTIONGROUP,
Defendants-Appellants.____________________________________
JOGI CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CITY OF JERSEY CITY and JOSEPHM. SANZARI, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants._____________________________________
Argued December 15, 2010 - Decided
Before Judges Sapp-Peterson and Fasciale.
On appeal from the Superior Court of NewJersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket
1 Under A-1649-10T2, the City of Jersey City is appealing theorder entered under L-4553-10, Jogi Construction being therespondent, as well as the order entered under L-5049-10, VanasConstruction Co., Inc. being the respondent.
December 23, 2010
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
2/41
A-1649-10T22
Nos. L-4553-10 (A-1804-10T2) and L-5049-10(A-1650-10T2).
Raymond Reddington, Supervisory AssistantCorporation Counsel, argued the cause for
appellant City of Jersey City under A-1649-10T2 (William Matsikoudis, CorporationCounsel, attorney; Mr. Reddington, ofcounsel and on the brief).
Thomas S. Cosma argued the cause forappellant Joseph M. Sanzari, Inc. under A-1804-10T2 (Connell Foley, L.L.P., attorneys;Mr. Cosma, of counsel and on the brief).
Joseph J. Hocking argued the cause for
appellant Arco Electrical Contractors, Inc.,t/d/b/a Arco Construction Group under A-1650-10T2 (Schenck, Price, Smith & King,L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Hocking, on thebrief).
Henry N. Christensen, Jr. (Norton &Christensen, P.A.) argued the cause forrespondent Jogi Construction, Inc. under A-1804-10T2.
Aldo DiTrolio argued the cause forrespondent Vanas Construction Co., Inc.under A-1650-10T2 (Gaccione, Pomaco &Malanga, P.C., attorneys; Mr. DiTrolio, ofcounsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In these three accelerated appeals that have been
consolidated, appellants Joseph M. Sanzari, Inc. (Sanzari), Arco
Electical Contractors, Inc., t/d/b/a Arco Construction Group
(Arco), and the City of Jersey City (the City), appeal from
trial court orders entering judgment in favor of respondent Jogi
Construction, Inc. (Jogi) and partial judgment in favor of Vanas
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
3/41
A-1649-10T23
Construction Co., Inc. (Vanas). The trial court found that bid
proposals submitted by Sanzari for the Newark Avenue Roadway
Improvement Project, Federal Project No. FS-7851(102) and Jersey
City Project No. 09-006 (Newark Avenue Project), and by Arco for
the West District Police Precinct, Project No. 2007-002 (West
District Precinct Project), were materially defective and that
the defects were non-waivable. The court permanently enjoined
and restrained the City from implementing and effectuating the
respective contracts as to Sanzari and Arco. We affirm.
I.
Jersey City advertised for bids in connection with the two
projects in the spring of 2010. The bid specifications required
that prospective bidders complete and submit numerous documents.
Two such documents were the "Certificate of Experience" of the
general contractor and the "Plant and Equipment Questionnaire"
(Questionnaire) to be completed by the general contractor.
Additionally, the bid specifications required the separate
submission of a Certificate of Experience and Questionnaire to
be completed by each subcontractor required to be named pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 40A:11-16.2
2 We have reproduced the exact language of the Certificate ofExperience and Questionnaire contained in the two bid proposals.The Certificate of Experience and Questionnaire are attached asAppendices A and B, respectively.
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
4/41
A-1649-10T24
It is undisputed that when the City opened bids for the
Newark Avenue Project on May 6, 2010, Sanzari's bid was the
lowest at $3,169,067.80, followed by Jogi at $3,348,789.94, and
English Paving Company, Inc., at $3,399,133.73. However,
Sanzari's bid proposal did not include a completed Certificate
of Experience and Questionnaire for Kevco Electric Company
(Kevco), listed as Sanzari's electrical engineer in the bid
proposal. The City notified Sanzari of the deficiency, and
either on May 6 or May 7, Sanzari provided the omitted
documents. Similarly, when the City opened the bids for the
West District Precinct Project on August 5, 2010, Arco's bid of
$9,653,153 was the lowest, followed by Vanas at $9,750,000, and
Onekey, LLC at $9,790,000. Arco also failed to include in its
package completed Certificates of Experience and Questionnaires
for K & D Contractors, LLC, its proposed plumbing and HVAC
subcontractor; and Erection & Welding Contractors, its proposed
structural steel and ornamental iron subcontractor. The City
advised Arco that it could submit the requisite documents within
twenty-four hours.
A. The Jogi Bid Protest
Jogi filed a bid protest for the Newark Avenue Project on
May 7, the day following bid openings. Jogi contended the
Sanzari bid proposal was non-responsive and thereby null and
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
5/41
A-1649-10T25
void. In a letter dated May 14, Jersey City notified Sanzari
that "[p]ursuant to the terms and conditions of the City's bid
specifications, the City must reject Sanzari's bid." The letter
stated further:
The Certificates of Experience for thesubcontractor named in the proposal pursuantto N.J.S.A. 40A:11-16 was discussed in twodifferent sections of the bid specification.Section 8 entitled "Bid Documents" on pageI-6 of the Information to Bidders advisedbidders that Certificates of Experience forsubcontractors required by law to be listed
in the proposal were to be submitted withthe proposal. It advised that a failure todo so would result in rejection of the bid.The Schedule of Required Submittals byBidder on page SRS-1 advised that a failureto include the Certificates would result inrejection of the bid.
. . . ([C]ontracting authorities maynot waive any material or substantialvariation between the conditions under which
the bids are invited and the proposalsubmitted). The Certificates of Experiencefor subcontractors that were required by lawto be listed in the bid proposal werereferenced in two different sections of thebid specifications. Bidders were clearlyadvised that the Certificates were mandatorydocuments that were to be submitted with theproposal. The City will proceed to evaluatethe bid proposal of Jogi Construction, Inc.to determine if it is the lowest responsible
bidder.
In correspondence dated May 20, Sanzari's attorney stated
that the bid proposal was not materially defective and that the
City was "legally bound under the Local Public Contracts Law to
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
6/41
A-1649-10T26
award the contract to Sanzari as the lowest responsible bidder."
He first argued as a threshold matter that N.J.S.A. 40A:11-16(b)
did not apply because Kevco was the only electrical
subcontractor named in the proposal and, therefore, Sanzari was
only required to list the "names of the trade subcontractors
required to be listed by N.J.S.A. 40A:11-16." Second, he argued
that Kevco "is well-known to the City from other City public
projects in which Kevco has performed or is performing
electrical work." Third, he challenged the two provisions
contained in the bid proposals cited by the City in its May 14
correspondence:
Neither Section 8 nor the Schedule statethat the general contractor (i.e., thebidder) must provide a separate Certificateof Experience for its subcontractors, bethey listed or unlisted subcontractors.
Indeed, the Certificate of Experience itselfdoes not state that it must be completed bythe listed subcontractors. Rather, itstates at pg. P-32 as follows: "IMPORTANT:THIS CERTIFICATION MUST BE FILLED IN BYBIDDER." (Emphasis in original).
Sanzari's next argument acknowledged that the Questionnaire
expressly required the general contractor to provide duplicate
copies of the proposal to its proposed subcontractors and
required the subcontractors to complete the duplicate documents,
but noted that this provision was "found a[t] the bottom of the
second page of the Plant and Equipment Questionnaire, which is
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
7/41
A-1649-10T27
of course a different document that asks for information
particular to plant and equipment." Finally, he argued that the
City ignored "the equally important provisions of Section 29
['SUBMISSION OF POST BID INFORMATION'] of the Information to
Bidders[,]" that contemplated "the possibility of post-bid
submissions specifically addressed to the responsibility of the
proposed subcontractors."
Subsequent to its receipt of the correspondence from
Sanzari's attorney, the City, in a letter dated May 27, 2010,
notified Sanzari that after reviewing Tec Electric, Inc. v.
Franklin Lakes Board of Education, 284 N.J. Super. 480 (Law Div.
1995), it reconsidered its rejection of Sanzari's bid proposal
and concluded that "despite what the specifications stated, . .
. . Sanzari's failure to include the Certificate [of Experience
for Kevco] was a minor defect which could be and was cured[,]"
and that under the Tec Electric, Inc. decision, it was required
to permit "Sanzari to cure the defect."
B. The Vanas Bid Protest
On August 9, five days after bid opening, Vanas formally
objected to the award of the contract to Arco. It first took
"exception to the leniency the City has allowed Arco with
respect to issuing this documentation within 24 hours as all of
this documentation was to be 'submitted with the bid' as
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
8/41
A-1649-10T28
indicated in multiple locations in the bid form." Vanas next
maintained that Arco's non-compliance "prevented the City from
determining that legitimate, experienced subcontractors were
being used." It additionally argued:
Furthermore, if the bid of Arco wassubstantially less tha[n] the second bid,they could adopt a position that their biddid not comply with the requirements of thebid form and therefore withdraw their bid
without penalty and without being bound bythe Bid Bond to the City of Jersey City[,]thereby giving them an advantage over every
other bidder who submitted bids inaccordance with the Contract Documents.Clearly, the intent of the Bid Form was thatall the required documentation be submitted
with the bid. The bid of Arco did notcomply with this requirement.
In response, the City acknowledged that the failure to
include the Certificate of Experience and Questionnaire
documents for each of Arco's subcontractors was "clearly a bid
defect." Specifically, the City concluded:
First, the submission of documents usedto determine the responsibility of a bidderdid not deprive the City of its assurancethat the contract would be entered into,performed and guaranteed according to thespecified requirements. Arco submitted abid bond and consent of surety and would
have suffered severe financial consequencesif it had refused to provide the documentsto the City. Second, allowing Arco to curethe defect did not give it a competitiveadvantage over the other bidders. Themissing documents pertained to theexperience and qualification ofsubcontractors. The document did not and
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
9/41
A-1649-10T29
could not influence the amount of the Arco[]bid or of any of the other bidders. See[]Tec Elec[.], Inc. v. Franklin Lakes Bd. ofEduc[.], 284 N.J. Super. 480, 487 (Law Div.1995).
In a resolution adopted on July 14, 2010, City Council
awarded the Newark Avenue Project to Sanzari. In a resolution
dated September 15, 2010, City Council awarded the West District
Precinct Project to Arco. Jogi and Vanas, as the second lowest
bidders on the respective contracts, filed verified complaints
in lieu of prerogative writ seeking to set aside the action of
the City. Jogi argued that the contract award to Sanzari was
arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious, illegal, and in derogation
of public policy. Vanas' complaint raised similar allegations
but additionally alleged that "[a]ssuming a post-bid cure was
even permissible, Arco's post-bid submissions still did not
substantially meet the requirements of the bid invitation."
C. The Prerogative Writ Actions
The trial court conducted oral argument on the Sanzari/Jogi
matter on September 28 and on the Arco/Vanas matter on October
7. The court reserved decision after each of the arguments and
issued a written opinion on October 15, granting judgment in
favor of Jogi and partial judgment in favor of Vanas. In
reaching its decision, the court first considered the purposes
for the Certificate of Experience and Questionnaire. To answer
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
10/41
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
11/41
A-1649-10T211
essentially provided with nothing more thanthe names and addresses of thesubcontractors that would be responsible forperforming portions of the work requiredunder the contract. At the time of bid
reception, the City therefore had noinformation regarding prior work performedby each subcontractor, the manner in whicheach subcontractor had inspected theproposed work, each subcontractor's plan forperforming the proposed work, the supervisorresponsible for overseeing eachsubcontractor, full information as to eachsubcontractor's other private or governmentcontracts, each subcontractor's availableequipment, or the status of each
subcontractor's contracts for materials.
The court concluded that the action of the City in awarding the
two contracts to the two lowest bidders violated N.J.S.A.
40A:11-23.2.
The court also considered the impact of the awards under
the two-part test first enunciated by Judge Pressler in Township
of River Vale v. R.J. Longo Construction Co., Inc., 127 N.J.
Super. 207, 216 (Law. Div. 1974) and adopted by the Supreme
Court in Meadowbrook Carting Co., Inc. v. Borough of Island
Heights, 138 N.J. 307, 313 (1994):
[F]irst, whether the effect of a waiverwould be to deprive the municipality of its
assurance that the contract will be enteredinto, performed and guaranteed according toits specified requirements, and second,
whether it is of such a nature that its waiver would adversely affect competitivebidding by placing a bidder in a position ofadvantage over other bidders or by otherwise
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
12/41
A-1649-10T212
undermining the necessary common standard ofcompetition.
[River Vale, supra, 127 N.J. Super. at 216.]
The court noted the Court's recognition in Meadowbrook that
notwithstanding the existence of the River Vale test, decisions
applying the two-part test "have been somewhat inconsistent in
articulating the difference between a material defect in a bid
that cannot be waived and an immaterial defect that can be
waived." Meadowbrook, supra, 138 N.J. 319.
Against this analytical framework, the court rejected the
argument advanced that bid bonds were in place to prevent
Sanzari and Arco from walking away from the contracts once the
bids were opened and they were deemed non-compliant because the
bid bonds for each project would only entitle the City to
$20,000 in each case if the bidders walked away and the projects
were valued in excess of $3 million and $9 million respectively.
Consequently, the court concluded "[t]he non[-]compliance by
both [d]efendants precluded such commitment because the omission
of Certificates effectively left nullification in the hands of
the bidders." Based upon these findings, the court was
satisfied that Jersey City, in both instances was "deprived of
adequate assurance that [the] contracts would be entered into
with the non[-]compliant [d]efendants."
Addressing the second prong, the court stated:
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
13/41
A-1649-10T213
[B]oth [d]efendants were afforded an unfairbidding advantage insofar as they were notrequired to submit the subcontractordocumentation in their initial bidsubmissions. Whether or not the burden of
doing so is considered to be laborious, therequirement of obtaining Certificates andsupporting documents from all subcontractorsmust surely lessen the pool of subcontractorcandidates from which a bidding contractorcan choose in preparing the final bidsubmission. I therefore find itindisputable that a general contractor whois not required to obtain these documentsprior to bid submission is placed in aposition of advantage over its competitors.
Moreover, in order to achieve the"common standard of competition" called forby the LPCL,3 the conditions andspecifications of the bidding process "mustapply equally to all prospective bidders."Hillside [v. Sternin], 25 N.J. [317,] 322[(1957)]. Were it otherwise, and werecourts to freely permit individual biddersto follow or disregard bid specifications attheir leisure, "the mandate for equality
among bidders would be illusory and theadvantages of competition would be lost."Id. at 323. The unambiguous languageincluded in the packet submitted to biddersby the City is not, and cannot, be disputedby the parties; all bidders were put onnotice that failure to include the necessaryCertificates and Questionnaires would resultin "automatic rejection . . . at the time of[b]id reception." In conformity with itsrejection of a bid by A.J.M. Contractors
just months earlier on the same grounds, theCity initially enforced the clear languageof its bid specifications by rejectingDefendant Sanzari's bid proposal for failureto include the Kevco Certificate in its
3 Local Public Contracts Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:11-1 to -51.
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
14/41
A-1649-10T214
initial bid submission. The City thereafterreversed course and permitted both[d]efendants the opportunity to cure thevery same type of defect that had caused therejection of the A.J.M. bid. I conclude
that a "common standard of competition"cannot exist when the rules of the game arechanged at the very moment that they arebroken.
Subsequent to the court's rulings, the City awarded the
contracts to Jogi and Vanas. The court thereafter entered an
order staying its October 15 orders. Sanzari and Arco filed
applications with this court seeking permission to file an
emergent motion on short notice to continue the stay pending
appeal. We denied the application by order dated November 18,
2010, and on appeal to the Supreme Court, our order was
reversed. By order dated November 24, we granted the emergent
application, extended the trial court's stay pending appeal,
issued an accelerated briefing schedule and consolidated the two
appeals for purposes of joint disposition. The City filed a
separate appeal on December 1, 2010, which has been consolidated
with the Sanzari and Arco appeals.
On appeal, Sanzari contends:
POINT ITHE CITY ACTED WITHIN ITS PERMISSIBLEDISCRETION WHEN IT PERMITTED SANZARI TO CUREAN IMMATERIAL AND WAIVABLE DEFECT IN FAILINGTO INCLUDE THE CERTIFICATE OF EXPERIENCE.
A. THE CONFLICTING BID INSTRUCTIONS DIDNOT EXPRESSLY REQUIRE THE CERTIFICATE
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
15/41
A-1649-10T215
OR QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SUBCONTRACTORS BESUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF BIDDING.
B. EVEN IF A CERTIFICATE AND QUESTIONNAIREFOR KEVCO WERE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF
BIDDING, THEIR INADVERTENT OMISSION DIDNOT CONSTITUTE A MATERIAL DEFECT.
C. THE LACK OF MATERIALITY OF THE LATESUBMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS IS FURTHEREVIDENCED BY . . . SANZARI'S COMPLETECOMPLIANCE WITH THE LPCL.
POINT IIIT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLICTHAT THE CONTRACT BE AWARDED TO SANZARI.
In its appeal, Arco contends:
POINT IARCO'S FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE REQUIREDSUBCONTRACTOR DOCUMENTATION WITH ITS BID DIDNOT VIOLATE THE FIRST PRONG OFRIVERVALE/MEADOWBROOK MATERIALITY ANALYSISBECAUSE IT DID NOT DEPRIVE JERSEY CITY OFANY ASSURANCE THAT THE CONTRACT WOULD BEENTERED INTO AND PERFORMED BY ARCO ACCORDING
TO ITS SPECIFIED TERMS.
POINT IIJERSEY CITY'S AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO ARCODID NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND PRONG OFRIVERVALE/MEADOWBROOK MATERIALITY ANALYSISBECAUSE ARCO GAVE NO COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGEOVER VANAS OR ANY OTHER COMPLIANT BIDDER.
POINT IIIVANAS' DISCUSSION OF OTHER ALLEGED
DEFICIENCIES IN ARCO'S POST-BID SUBMISSIONSIS INAPPROPRIATE AND SHOULD NOT BECONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.
The City, in its appeal, contends:
POINT I
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
16/41
A-1649-10T216
THE FAILURE OF SANZARI AND ARCO TO INCLUDEWITH THEIR BID PROPOSALS CERTIFICATES OFEXPERIENCE AND PLANT AND EQUIPMENTQUESTIONNAIRES FOR SUBCONTRACTORS NAMEDPURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 40A:11-16 WERE CURABLE
BID DEFECTS.
POINT IISANZARI AND ARCO WERE NOT AFFORDED AN UNFAIRBIDDING ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY WERE LEGALLYBOUND TO PERFORM THE CONTRACTS WITH THESUBCONTRACTORS NAMED IN THEIR BID PROPOSALS.
POINT IIITHE LAW PERMITS THE CITY TO ALLOW A LOWBIDDER TO CURE MINOR BID DEFECTS.
POINT IVTHERE WAS A COMMON STANDARD OF COMPETITIONFOR ALL BIDDERS WHO SUBMITTED PROPOSALS FORPROJECTS I AND II.
II.
In our review of the City's determination that the omission
of the Certificates of Experience and Questionnaires in the bid
proposals submitted by Sanzari and Arco were minor defects that
were curable and waivable, we apply the same standard of review
employed by the trial court, namely, whether the decision was
arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. Palamar Constr., Inc. v.
Twp. of Pennsauken, 196 N.J. Super. 241, 250 (App. Div. 1983).
We approach this matter mindful that ordinarily it is not our
task to substitute our judgment for that of the municipality,
particularly where municipal action calls for the exercise of
discretion. Colonnelli Bros., Inc. v. Vill. of Ridgefield Park,
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
17/41
A-1649-10T217
284 N.J. Super. 538, 541 (App. Div. 1995), certif. denied, 143
N.J. 327 (1996). Nonetheless, in the context of awarding public
contracts, we are also mindful that we have construed local
public contracts law "to curtail the discretion of local
authorities by demanding strict compliance with public bidding
guidelines." L. Pucillo & Sons, Inc. v. Mayor and Council of
Borough of New Milford, 73 N.J. 349, 356 (1977).
Close scrutiny of municipal action in the award of public
contracts furthers the objective underlying all public bidding
laws, namely, "to secure for the taxpayers the benefits of
competition and to promote the honesty and integrity of the
bidders and the system[.]" In re Protest of Award of On-Line
Games Prod. and Operation Servs. Contract, 279 N.J. Super. 566,
589 (App. Div. 1995). Public "[b]idding statutes are for the
benefit of the taxpayers and are construed as nearly as possible
with sole reference to the public good." Terminal Constr. Corp.
v. Atl. County Sewerage Auth., 67 N.J. 403, 409-10 (1975).
The court observed more than fifty years ago in Hillside,
supra, "[i]n this field it is better to leave the door tightly
closed than to permit it to be ajar, thus necessitating
forevermore in such cases speculation as to whether or not it
was purposely left that way." 25 N.J. at 326. Consequently, a
municipality must ensure that its bidding process is not used or
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
18/41
A-1649-10T218
perceived as being used in such a way as to favor one bidder
over another or to allow for corruption. Terminal Constr.,
supra, 67 N.J. at 410. In doing so, a municipality furthers the
objectives of our public contract laws, which is not to promote
the individual interests of the bidders, but to promote the
public interest by "inviting competition in which all bidders
are placed on an equal basis[.]" River Vale, supra, 127 N.J.
Super. at 215. See also 426 Bloomfield Ave. Corp. v. City of
Newark, 262 N.J. Super. 384, 387 (App. Div. 1993).
Here, there is no dispute that the City identified the
submission of these documents as mandatory and that the
consequence for the failure to submit the documents was
automatic rejection. It is also undisputed that the documents
were not included in the bid proposals as required. If the
omitted documents are statutorily mandated, then unquestionably
the failure to submit the documents with the bid proposal is
non-waivable. N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23.1; see also P & A Constr.,
Inc. v. Twp. of Woodbridge, 365 N.J. Super. 164, 177 (App. Div.
2004). On the other hand, if not statutorily mandated, the
determination of whether the defects are minor or
inconsequential and therefore waivable, or material and non-
waivable is subject to the two-part River Vale test. Ibid.
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
19/41
A-1649-10T219
A.
The trial judge found that the omission of the Certificates
of Experience and Questionnaire for the subcontractors rendered
Sanzari's and Arco's bids "defectively unresponsive and non-
curable" and the City's decision to permit Sanzari and Arco to
cure the defect violated N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23.2.
N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23.2 states in relevant part:
When required by the bid plans andspecifications, the following requirements
shall be considered mandatory items to besubmitted at the time specified by thecontracting unit for the receipt of thebids; the failure to submit any one of themandatory items shall be deemed a fataldefect that shall render the bid proposalunresponsive and that cannot be cured by thegoverning body:
. . . .
d. A listing of subcontractors pursuant tosection 16 of P.L.1971, c.198 (C.40A:11-16)[.]
N.J.S.A. 40A:11-16 requires that in the case of a single
bid contract, as in the Sanzari and Arco bids, the bids must
contain:
the name or names of all subcontractors to
whom the bidder will subcontract thefurnishing of plumbing and gas fitting, andall kindred work, and of the steam and hot
water heating and ventilating apparatus,steam power plants and kindred work, andelectrical work, structural steel andornamental iron work, each of whichsubcontractors shall be qualified in
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
20/41
A-1649-10T220
accordance with P.L.1971, c.198 (C.40A:11-1et seq.)
[(emphasis added).]
While the bid proposals contained the names of the
subcontractors, there was nothing provided that demonstrated the
subcontractors' qualifications in "accordance with P.L.1971,
c.198 (C.40A:11-1 et seq.)" Ibid. We construe the reference to
"40A:11-1 et seq." to simply mean that the subcontractor must
meet the test for qualifications under the LPCL, whatever those
particular qualifications may be. A review of the LPCL does not
set forth any particular requirement for subcontractors other
than their listing under Section 11-16. Thus, we do not agree
that the failure to provide the Certificate and Questionnaire
for the subcontractors violated N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23.2 as the
trial court found. That, however, does not end the discussion.
As we have previously had occasion to state:
[T]he 1999 amendments to the [LPCL] do notcontain any legislative directive concerningthe waiver of other bid defects. We do notbelieve that this legislative silence can bereasonably construed as an affirmativeauthorization for local contracting agenciesto waive any bid defect that is not
expressly set forth in N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23.2.Instead, we conclude that N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23.2 should be construed as a legislativedirective that a bidder's failure to submitany of the five mandatory items set forththerein shall automatically be considered anon[-]waivable defect, but any other bid
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
21/41
A-1649-10T221
defect shall continue to be considered underthe River Vale criteria of materiality.
[P & A Constr., supra, 365 N.J. Super. at177.]
Because the trial court did not base its decision solely
upon its finding that the City violated N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23.2,
but instead also considered the River Vale criteria of
materiality, any error in reaching the conclusion that the City
violated N.J.S.A. 40A:11-23.2 was harmless. R. 2:10-2.
B.
In applying the River Vale factors, we must first determine
whether the City's decision to waive its requirement that
bidders submit the Certificates of Experience and Questionnaires
at the time the bid proposals were submitted "deprive[d] the
[the City] of its assurance that the contract [would] be entered
into, performed and guaranteed according to its specified
requirements." River Vale, supra, 127 N.J. Super. at 216. As
to Sanzari, in reversing its earlier rejection of the bids as
non-conforming "with the bidding instructions," in its May 27,
2010 letter, the City simply stated that "despite what the
specifications stated, this was a minor bid defect." The letter
provided no explanation why the defect was deemed minor.
Rather, it merely referenced the River Vale factors and then, in
a conclusory manner, stated "[b]ased on this test," the omission
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
22/41
A-1649-10T222
of the documents "was a minor defect which could be and was
cured."
As to Arco, the City offered three reasons why it
considered the defect to be minor: (1) Arco submitted a bid
bond and consent surety and would have suffered severe financial
consequences if it had refused to provide the documents to the
City; (2) the "missing documents pertained to the experience and
qualification of subcontractors"; and (3) the "document did not
and could not influence the amount of . . . Arco's bid or of any
of the other bidders." Financial security to perform is only
one factor that evidences the bidders ability to perform the
contract in accordance with the plans and bid specifications.
The City used the Certificate of Experience and Questionaire to
consider other factors, including "availability of facilities
necessary to perform the contract[.]" The absence of these
documents at the time the bids were received provided no
assurances of the "availability of facilities necessary to
perform the contract[.]" The City had no information whatsoever
in this regard. As the trial court stated:
In the absence of these Certificates andother required documentation in both cases,the City was essentially provided withnothing more than the names and addresses ofthe subcontractors that would be responsiblefor performing portions of the work requiredunder the contract. At the time of bidreception, the City therefore had no
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
23/41
A-1649-10T223
information regarding prior work performedby each subcontractor, the manner in whicheach subcontractor had inspected theproposed work, each subcontractor's plan forperforming the proposed work, the supervisor
responsible for overseeing eachsubcontractor, full information as to eachsubcontractor's other private or governmentcontracts, each subcontractor's availableequipment, or the status of eachsubcontractor's contracts for materials.
We note that although not mandated statutorily for
subcontractors, N.J.S.A. 40A:11-20 provides:
There may be required from any biddersubmitting a bid on public work to anycontracting unit, duly advertised for inaccordance with law, a certificate showingthat he owns, leases, or controls all thenecessary equipment required by the plans,specifications and advertisements under
which bids are asked for and if the bidderis not the actual owner or lessee of anysuch equipment, his certificate shall statethe source from which the equipment will be
obtained, and shall be accompanied by acertificate from the owner or person incontrol of the equipment definitely grantingto the bidder the control of the equipmentrequired during such time as may benecessary for the completion of that portionof the contract for which it is necessary.
The inclusion of this provision in the LPCL is clear evidence of
the substantive materiality of the Questionnaire here because it
calls for the bidder to provide most of the information set
forth under Section 11-20.
The City exercised its discretion to not only require the
general contractor to complete the Questionnaire but also
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
24/41
A-1649-10T224
required each subcontractor listed by the bidder to also
complete the Questionnaire. As we stated in P & A Construction,
Inc., supra, 365 N.J. Super. at 173, where the issue was the
omission of a certified financial statement, which was a
mandatory requirement in the bid specification but later deemed
waivable by the municipality because it was not statutorily
mandated:
The essential reason for requiring a bidderto submit a certified financial statement
with its bid, as with the requirement that abidder show that it owns, leases or controls whatever equipment is necessary to performthe contract . . . is to provide assuranceto the contracting agency that the bidder
will be able to complete performance if itis awarded the contract.
[Ibid. (emphasis added).]
We agree, as appellants argued, that not every item
designated as mandatory in a bid proposal means that the item is
material and therefore non-waivable. Here, however, the record
does not support such a finding. If, for example, the
Certificate of Experience or Questionnaire contains responses
that facially reflect questionable plans, supervision,
availability of the necessary equipment, "this would provide a
proper basis for the contracting agency to reject the bid on the
ground that the bidder's ability to complete performance could
be jeopardized by a lack of" sufficient human and equipment
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
25/41
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
26/41
A-1649-10T226
would be lost." Id. at 323. Theunambiguous language included in the packetsubmitted to bidders by the City is not, andcannot, be disputed by the parties; allbidders were put on notice that failure to
include the necessary Certificates andQuestionnaires would result in "automaticrejection . . . at the time of Bidreception." In conformity with itsrejection of a bid by A.J.M. Contractorsjust months earlier on the same grounds, theCity initially enforced the clear languageof its bid specifications by rejectingDefendant Sanzari's bid proposal for failureto include the Kevco Certificate in itsinitial bid submission. The City thereafter
reversed course and permitted both[d]efendants the opportunity to cure thevery same type of defect that had caused therejection of the A.J.M. bid. I concludethat a "common standard of competition"cannot exist when the rules of the game arechanged at the very moment that they arebroken.
There is no contention here that the actions of Sanzari or
Arco were other than as represented, inadvertent. Nor is there
any evidence that the City's actions in waiving the defects were
undertaken for any reason other than advancing the public
interest. At oral argument, the City explained that the
inclusion of the Certificate of Experience and Questionnaire as
mandatory in the bid proposals and for which automatic rejection
would result in the event of non-compliance, was a "mistake."
We initially note that this was not an explanation offered to
any of the bidders at the time of the bid protests. Nor was
this argument advanced before the trial court. Hence, there is
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
27/41
A-1649-10T227
no support for this contention in the record and we decline to
consider it here. Star of Sea Concrete Corp. v. Lucas Brothers,
Inc., 370 N.J. Super. 60, 72 (App. Div. 2004) (citing Nieder v.
Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973)).
Moreover, by urging that we view what it clearly denoted in
the bid proposal as mandatory and grounds for automatic
rejection as a minor defect that was waivable and curable, the
City "would be free to reject a low bidder for such an omission"
as the trial court observed had occurred months earlier with
the A.J.M. bid. Pucillo, supra, 73 N.J. at 355. Yet, the City
"could accept a non-conforming bid [such as the Sanzari and Arco
bids,] when it was 'in the best interest of [the City].'" Id.
at 356. In essence, the City has:
transform[ed] the mandatory requirement in
[its] specifications into a polite request.The ordinary reader of the specifications would regard them as calling for[compliance] on all the terms specified.Awarding the contract to one who failed to[comply] on all terms necessary created aninequity in the bidding and an opportunityfor favoritism.
[Ibid.]
The savings to the taxpayers by waiving the defects and
awarding the two contracts to Sanzari and Arco are not
insignificant. However, savings to the taxpayers, standing
alone, is insufficient to justify waiver of a material
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
28/41
A-1649-10T228
requirement in the bid specifications. Meadowbrook, supra, 138
N.J. at 325. "Contracts are not to be awarded 'simply to the
lowest bidder, but rather to the lowest bidder that complies
with the substantive and procedural requirements in the bid
advertisements and specifications.'" Star of the Sea, supra,
370 N.J. Super. at 73 (quoting Meadowbrook, supra, 138 N.J. at
313). N.J.S.A. 40A:11-2(27) defines "lowest responsible bidder"
as "the bidder or vendor: (a) whose response to a request for
bids offers the lowest price and is responsive; and (b) who is
responsible. (emphasis added). "While the public may
occasionally be harmed by failure to waive a bid requirement,
'the overriding interest in insuring the integrity of the
bidding process is more important than the isolated savings at
stake.'" Star of the Sea, supra, 370 N.J. Super. at 73
(quoting Meadowbrook, supra, 138 N.J. at 313).
We disagree with the argument advanced by appellants that
because the post-bid submissions call for further submissions,
upon request from the engineer or architect, this is further
support for their contention that the omissions were minor
defects. This language, contained in the Information to
Bidders, is permissive and does not call for the submission of
documentation addressing the responsibility of the proposed
subcontractors unless it is requested. We therefore do not view
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
29/41
A-1649-10T229
this provision as diminishing the materiality of the
Certificates of Experience and Questionnaires, whose
significance here was evidenced by (1) the mandatory nature of
the documents as expressly noted in the bid proposals; (2)
notice provided to the bidders in the proposal that the
consequences for non-compliance is automatic rejection; and (3)
the City's clear and unequivocal statement of its purpose for
requesting the documents. We note further that in both bid
proposals, these two documents were located sequentially with
each other, rather than separated by numerous other pages
between the two documents.
Finally, in their briefs and during oral argument, Sanzari
and Arco placed considerable reliance upon Palamar Construction,
Inc., supra, and the Law Division decision in Tec Electric Inc.,
supra, to support their position that the omissions here were
minor defects that were curable. We agree with Jogi and Vanas
that these cases are factually distinguishable. Neither case
addressed a bid specification that was delineated as mandatory
and included other evidence in the record demonstrating the
substantive materiality of the omitted documents. Further, if a
defect is material and non-waivable, the timing of the cure, in
our view, becomes irrelevant.
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
30/41
A-1649-10T230
The remaining arguments advanced by appellants are without
sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.
2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
31/41
A-1649-10T231
APPENDIX A
1. CERTIFICATE OF EXPERIENCE:
The Bidder must supply a document which will
indicate his experience in performing therequired work under this Project. Thisdocument shall be attached to this Proposaland along with this Certificate, shall besigned by Bidder.
The information to be included on thisdocument shall consist of at least thefollowing:
(1) Name of Owner
(2) Amount of Contract
(3) Type of Work
(4) Name of Owner's Engineer inCharge of Work
(5) Address of Owner's Engineer,Street and Municipality
(6) Approximate Dates
_______________________hereby certifies that________________ has performed the following work as described on the attached sheetwithin the past three (3) years.
________________________Name of Bidder
Witness By______________________
________________________Title
________________________Date
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
32/41
A-1649-10T232
APPENDIX A - CONTINUED
IMPORTANT: THIS CERTIFICATION MUST BE FILLEDIN BY BIDDER.
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
33/41
A-1649-10T233
APPENDIX B
2. PLANT AND EQUIPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Submitted to City of Jersey City
By________________________________
____ a Corporation
____ a Partnership
____ an Individual
With Principal Office at __________________.
The signatory of this questionnaireguarantees the truth and accuracy of allstatements and of all answers tointerrogatories hereinafter made.
a. In what matter have you inspected theproposed work? Explain in detail.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
b. Explain your plan and schedule forperforming the proposed work.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
c. The work, if awarded to you, will havethe personal supervision of whom?
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
34/41
A-1649-10T234
APPENDIX B - CONTINUED
d. Do you intend to do the paving on theproposed work with your own forces?
______ If so, give type of equipment to
be used.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
e. Do you intend to sublet any portions ofthe work?_____________ If so, it ismandatory pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:11-
16 that you list the names of thosesubcontractors under each disciplinebelow[.] [F]ailure to do so willautomatically result in rejection ofthe bid.
Trade Name of Subcontractor Address
Plumbing & _____________________ _______Gas Fitting _______and all kindred
[W]ork
Steam and ______________________ _______Hot Water _______Heating andVentilatingApparatus,and all kindredWork
Electric ______________________ _______
Work _______
Structural _______________________ _______Steel & _______Ornamental Iron _______
Each subcontractor listed above shall fillout and submit a Certificate of Experience
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
35/41
A-1649-10T235
APPENDIX B - CONTINUED
(as shown in this Bid Proposal) and items a,b, c, f, g, h, i and the remainingaffidavit, duly executed, on the last page
of the "Plant and Equipment Questionnaire".The General Contractor shall supply eachsubcontractor with duplicate pages of thisproposal to be filled out by thesubcontractor and then submitted with thebid proposal.
Whenever a bid sets forth more than onesubcontractor for any of the specialty tradecategories listed above, the bidder shallsubmit to the contracting unit a certificate
signed by the bidder listing eachsubcontractor named in the bid for thatcategory. The certificate shall set forththe scope of work for which thesubcontractor has submitted a price quoteand which the bidder has agreed to award toeach subcontractor should the bidder beawarded the contract. The certificate shallbe submitted to the contracting unitsimultaneously with the list of thesubcontractors. The certificate may take
the form of a single certificate listing allsubcontractors or, alternatively, a separatecertificate may be submitted for eachsubcontractor. If a bidder does not submita certificate or certificates to thecontracting unit, the contracting unit shallaward the contract to the next lowestresponsible bidder.
f. Give full information about all of yourcontracts, whether private or
government contracts, whether prime orsub-contracts; whether in progress orawarded but not yet begun; or where youare low bidder pending formal award ofcontract.
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
36/41
A-1649-10T236
APPENDIX B - CONTINUED
The information to be included on thisdocument shall consist of at least thefollowing:
(a) Owner(b) Location(c) Description(d) Adjusted Contract Amount(e) Amount Completed and
Billed(f) Additional Earned Since
Last Estimate(g) Balance to be Completed(h) Estimated Date of
Completion(i) Totals of Items, D, E,F, G and H above
g. What equipment do you own that isavailable for and intended to be usedon the proposed project?
The information to be included on thisdocument shall consist of at least thefollowing:
(a) Quantity(b) Type of Equipment(c) Description, Size,
Capacity, etc.(d) Condition(e) Years of Service(f) Present Location
h. What equipment do you intend topurchase or lease for use on the
proposed work, should the Contract beawarded to you?
The information to be included on thisdocument shall consist of at least thefollowing:
(a) Quantity
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
37/41
A-1649-10T237
APPENDIX B - CONTINUED
(b) Type of Equipment(c) Description, Size,
Capacity, etc.
(d) Approximate CostPurchase/Lease
i. Have you made contracts or receivedfirm offers for all materials withinprices used in preparing your Proposal?Do not give name of dealers ormanufacturers.
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
The undersigned hereby declare(s) thatthe items of equipment in [q]uestion gare owned by _________________________,and are available for and are intendedto be used on the Project, if awardedthe Contract, and that he/theypropose(s) to purchase or lease for theProject the additional items ofequipment stated in Question h.
If awarded the Contract, theundersigned will furnish certificatesfrom the owners of leased equipment tothe effect that, in case of default ofContract, as set forth in NJSSSubsection 108.14, the Governing Bodyhas the right to take over the leasedequipment for use in completing the
work.
STATE OF _________________) : ss.COUNTY OF ________________)
I, ___________ of the City of
__________, in the County of __________
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
38/41
A-1649-10T238
APPENDIX B - CONTINUED
and the State of _____________, of full
age, having been duly sworn according
to law, upon my oath depose and say
that:
I am ______________ of ____________________,Title Name of Organization
and that the answers to the foregoing
questions and all statements therein
contained are true and correct.
Sworn and Subscribed to ___________________the City of Jersey City
before me this _____ dayof __________, 200 .
_________________________
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC(Stamp and Seal)
My commission expires_________
3. FINANCIAL STATEMENT(see no. 3 on page p-3)
ASSETS
Cash on Hand $______
Cash in Bank and Nameof said Bank $______
__________________________________________
Accounts receivable from $______completed contracts
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
39/41
A-1649-10T239
APPENDIX B - CONTINUED
Real Estate used for business $______purposes
Material in Stock $______
Equipment Book Value $______
Furniture and Fixtures $______
Other Assets $______
TOTAL ASSETS $______
LIABILITIES
Notes payable to Bank $______
Notes payable for Equipment $______obligations
Notes payable for other $______obligations
Accounts payable $______
Other Liabilities $______
TOTAL LIABILITIES $______
5. CORPORATION OR PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT
Chapter 33 of the Public Laws of 1977provides that no corporation or partnershipshall be awarded any State, County,Municipal or School Districts contract forpurposes of any work or the furnishing of
any materials or supplies unless prior tothe receipt of the bid or accompanying thebid of said corporation or partnership thereis submitted a statement. The statementshall set forth the names and addresses ofall stockholders in the corporation orpartnership who own ten percent (10%) of itsstock of any class or of all individual
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
40/41
A-1649-10T240
APPENDIX B - CONTINUED
partners in the partnership who own a tenpercent (10%) or greater interest therein.
Incorporated:____ Partnership:____ Date:____200____
Legal Name of Bidder:_______________________
Business Address: Street, City, State andZip Code
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Telephone: ( )
____________________________________________Listed below are the names and addresses ofall stockholders in the corporation orpartnership who own ten percent (10%) ormore of its stock of any class, or of allindividual partners in the partnership whoown a ten percent (10%) or greater interest
therein.
Name:______________ Address:________________Name:______________ Address:________________Name:______________ Address:________________Name:______________ Address:________________Name:______________ Address:________________Name:______________ Address:________________Name:______________ Address:________________Name:______________ Address:________________Name:______________ Address:________________
Name:______________ Address:________________Name:______________ Address:________________Name:______________ Address:________________
We have no one person who owns ten percent(10%) or more of the corporat[ion] orpartnership.
-
8/8/2019 Arco Sanzari Appeal
41/41
APPENDIX B - CONTINUED
Signed:_________________Title:__________________
6. BID GUARANTEE (SEE INFORMATION TOBIDDERS ARTICLE NO. 09)
7. CONSENT OF SURETY (SEE INFORMATION TOBIDDERS ARTICLE NO. 10)