[brief] **THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT [...]’S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY A PWCRA-REGISTERED ARCHAEOLOGIST IN ITS BID WAS NON-MATERIAL AND WAIVABLE**  Even if [...]’s bid did not contain a statutory defect (although it clearly did violate the PWCRA), the Solicitation expressly identified the archaeologist as a subcontractor and the PWCRA mandates that all subcontractors identified in a bid be registered pre-bid.  [...]’s failure to comply with the PWCRA, as defined by the Solicitation, constitutes a material defect that cannot be waived.  In *Township of River Vale v. R.J. Longo Constr. Co.*, 127 NJ. Super. 207,216 (Law Div. 1974), [...] adopted an often followed two-prong test for determining whether a bid defect is material and non-waivable:  [F]irst, whether the effect of a waiver would be to deprive the municipality of its assurances that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to its specified requirements, and second, whether it is of such a nature that its waiver would adversely affect competitive bidding by placing a bidder in a position of advantage over other bidders or by otherwise undermining the necessary common standard of competition.  Applying the River Vale test, if the [...] were to ignore the PWCRA, section 0.32 of the Solicitation and the Bidder’s Proposed Subcontractor’s Form and waive the admitted defect in [...]’s bid, it would undoubtedly be deprived of the required assurance that [...] could perform all work in accordance with the Anticipated Contract and provide [...] an unlawful competitive advantage.  Here, [...] did not identify an archeologist subcontractor capable of performing the critical work on the Project in accordance with the requirements of the Solicitation and the PWCRA.  Indeed, [...]’s identified archaeological subcontractor is not permitted to perform on-site activities.  This, in and of itself, deprives [...] of adequate assurance that the Anticipated Contract will be performed in accordance with its terms if awarded to [...].  Even if a non-PWCRA registered archaeologist is permitted to perform the on-site work for the Project because it is not a subcontractor under PWCRA (although it clearly is), there is no question that [...]’s post-bid modification that the archaeologist is no longer a subcontractor (despite the clear language of the Solicitation indicating otherwise) constitutes an impermissible waiver that effectively gave [...] a competitive advantage over other bidders and prospective bidders.  Indeed, unlike [...], who sought, identified and secured an agreement from an archeologist subcontractor registered in accordance with the PWCRA in accordance with the Solicitation’s definitions, [...] is allowed to skirt that requirement.  Moreover, other bidders may have declined to submit bids in response to the Solicitation because of their inability to identify and secure an archeological subcontractor registered in accordance with the PWCRA and the Solicitation’s definitions.  Thus, a post-bid waiver of the definition of the archaeologist (which imposed the requirement to identify an archeologist subcontractor registered in accordance with the PWCRA) chills the competitive process and flies squarely against the LPCL.