The firm’s client was the lowest responsive bidder on a multi-million dollar public works project. The second low bidder filed a bid protest, alleging the client’s bid was nonresponsive because: (1) the client did not hold a specialty contractors license to perform certain work, and (2) the client’s bid was materially unbalanced. The firm successfully defended the client in written submissions to the public entity, establishing the client’s Class A license covered the related specialty scope and providing evidence the bid was not materially unbalanced. Based on the firm’s written submission, the public entity denied the protest and awarded the contract for the project to the firm’s client.
Counsel: Daniel P. Scholz and Matt D. Seeley