The firm’s client was the low bidder on a $9 million public works project. The second low bidder submitted a bid protest arguing the client was non-responsive because: (1) the client’s bond sureties had “A-” ratings rather than an “A” rating as stated in the bid documents; and (2) certain bid documents had been notarized by an expired notary. After written submissions, the firm successfully defended against the bid protest by proving the surety rating was equivalent to an “A” rating and the notary issue was a non-material waivable defect. The protest was denied, and the project was awarded to the client.
Counsel: Daniel P. Scholz and Matthew D. Seeley