Court Opinion

ID: 9915425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 15:07:46.693226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:00.620844
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1048-22

IN THE MATTER OF HIGBEE
BEACH RESTORATION
PROJECT, TOWNSHIP OF
LOWER CAPE MAY COUNTY,
NEW JERSEY, OFFICE OF
COASTAL ENGINEERING
PROJECT NO. 4299-20.

               Argued October 4, 2023 – Decided January 5, 2024

               Before Judges Currier, Firko and Susswein.

               On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
               Environmental Protection.

               William J. O'Kane, Jr., argued the cause for appellant
               Mount Construction, Inc. (Archer & Greiner, PC,
               attorneys; William J. O'Kane, Jr., and Christopher M.
               Terlingo, on the briefs).

               Kathrine Motley Hunt, Deputy Attorney General,
               argued the cause for respondent New Jersey
               Department of Environmental Protection (Matthew J.
               Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa,
               Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kathrine
               Motley Hunt and Jason Brandon Kane, Deputy
               Attorney General, on the brief).
            Richard Wayne Hunt argued the cause for respondent
            A.P. Construction, Inc. (Parker McCay, PA, attorneys;
            Richard Wayne Hunt and Sean T. Fannon, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Unsuccessful bidder Mount Construction, Inc. (Mount) appeals from the

final decision of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

denying Mount's protest of DEP's decision to award a contract for a complex

project (Project) to A.P. Construction, Inc. (A.P.).       The Project involves

construction of a berm with stormwater control structures, restoration of dunes ,

and construction and installation of certain public amenities in the Higbee Beach

area of Lower Township in Cape May County. Mount contends that DEP's

evaluation of the bid prices was subjective and the decision to award the Project

contract to A.P. was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. After a review of

the contentions in light of the facts and applicable principles of law, we affirm.

      In May 2022, DEP's Office of Coastal Engineering (OCE) issued an

advertisement for bids for the Project. According to the bid specifications, the

Project was intended to "restore[]" an "area of the Higbee Beach Wildlife

Management Area"; the work encompassed "earthwork, grading, dynamic

compaction, seeding and planting, trail enhancement and creation, construction

of water control structures, pedestrian bridge construction, boardwalk

                                                                            A-1048-22
                                        2
construction, wildlife viewing blinds[,] and other incidentals associated with the

work." The bid package included 140 pages of design plans for the construction

to which bidders were required to conform.

      All bidders required pre-qualification by the OCE and Department of

Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction (DPMC) . In

addition, bidders were required to substantiate their construction experience,

including proof they had previously accomplished "at least two (2) projects each

entailing berm construction" and "at least two (2) projects each with a minimum

of twenty (20) acres in size within wetlands or tidal waters entailing wetland

restoration or construction and required plantings."          According to the

advertisement, bidders could submit resumes of bidder and subcontractor

representatives, "but only the most experienced as demonstrated through the

number and type of previous similar projects overseen, will be scored, and be

considered in the evaluation." Bidders were also required to provide an "overall

sequencing/site management plan" including "detail of action, order of

operations, and management" for "the major facets of the Project," such as berm

construction, wetland restoration and planting, and "Plant Contingency."

      The advertisement informed bidders that "the winning bid" would be

determined by an "Evaluation Committee" and the Director of the Division of

                                                                            A-1048-22
                                        3
Resilience Engineering and Construction (DREC Director). The DREC Director

"reserve[d] the right to waive minor irregularities or omissions in a bid" and to

waive a non-material requirement. The DREC Director also "reserve[d] the

right to reject any or all bids, or to award whole or in part if deemed to be in the

best interest of the State to do so."

      Section 1:08 of the advertisement stated that "[b]ids shall be compared

and awarded based on the 'price and other factors' determination of the

Evaluation Committee, which w[ould] consider the cost proposals" and "the

[b]idder's   construction    experience"       including   its   "berm   construction

experience," "wetland restoration and planting experience," "dewatering

experience," and "site remediation experience and qualification" as well as the

bidder's "overall sequencing/site management plan" and "overall presentation

. . . of the [b]id." With respect to the evaluation of bidders' cost proposals,

Section 4:06.1 of the advertisement stated that:

             The pricing evaluation methodology will be date-
             stamped and entered into the record system along with
             the rest of the grading system and weighted maximum
             point totals before solicitation. If any changes or
             revisions are to be made to the evaluation process, it
             will occur during the solicitation phase and will be
             recorded in an Addendum. No changes are to be made
             upon receipt of bids on the bid opening date.

                                                                               A-1048-22
                                           4
      After receiving questions from bidders, OCE issued an addendum and

clarification. In response to a request to provide the "grading system and

weighted maximum point totals," OCE declined to provide additional

information, and referred bidders to the language in Sections 1:08 and 4:06 of

the bid advertisement. The bid submission deadline was also extended.

      On June 28, 2022, OCE received bid proposals for the Project from four

contractors: Mount, A.P., Abbonizio Construction, Inc. (Abbonizio) and JPC

Group, Inc. (JPC). The total cost proposals of each of the bidders, from highest

to lowest, were as follows:

            A.P.        $37,503,858

            JPC         $29,962,365

            Mount       $29,352,731

            Abbonizio $28,717,058

The "four proposals were deemed responsive" by the DEP Project Manager and

"forwarded to the [E]valuation [C]ommittee."

      Mount was prequalified by OCE and DPMC. Its bid proposal listed three

previous projects under "Wetlands Restoration and Planting Construction

experience and qualifications"—one project involved eighty acres, the second

project involved eight acres and the third project entailed six acres of wetlands

                                                                           A-1048-22
                                       5
restoration. Mount also provided four pages of tables with information about its

previous construction projects, including berm and dewatering construction, and

site remediation.     Although Mount included the names of contractor

representatives, it did not provide resumes for the representatives. Mount did

not provide a sequencing or site management plan.

      A.P. was also prequalified. Its bid proposal provided descriptions of two

previous berm construction projects and four previous wetlands projects it or its

named subcontractors had completed, all of which were more than twenty acres.

A.P. also listed previous dewatering projects and site remediation projects it had

performed and provided resumes of its contractor representatives for all the

listed projects. A.P. submitted an overall sequencing/site management plan as

well as sequencing/site management plans for the individual aspects of the

Project.

      The Evaluation Committee consisted of seven members, all DEP

employees—with two members from OCE, two members from the Office of

Dam Safety, and one member each from the Office of Natural Resources

Restoration (ONRR), the Division of Fish and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Site

Management.      Evaluators were instructed that communication between

                                                                            A-1048-22
                                        6
committee members or with bidders about the bids or the Project was "strictly

forbidden."

      Prior to review, the bidders' names were redacted from the proposals and

the cost portion of each proposal was separated from the experience portion, to

be evaluated separately. Evaluators were instructed to score each bid proposal

based on a maximum possible 150 points, with the cost proposal scored as a

maximum of 100 points, and the bidders' experience and other factors scored as

a maximum of fifty points. Cost proposals were assigned a number (one through

four) and the experience portions were assigned a letter (A through D), so that

evaluators did not know the relationship between the cost proposal and the

amount of experience listed in the particular bid.

      With respect to the cost proposals, evaluators were instructed that, out of

the 100 possible points, a maximum of seventy points could be awarded for the

total bid price; a maximum of ten points each could be awarded for the bid prices

for berm construction and "General Work"; and a maximum of five points each

could be awarded for the bid prices for upland and marsh plantings and

foundational dewatering. The evaluators were given detailed instructions on

how to evaluate the different cost categories. For example, the instructions for

evaluation of the "General Work" category stated:

                                                                           A-1048-22
                                        7
            General work is included in the total bid price, but it is
            also crucial to evaluate this independently. This is
            because Contractors have been known to "front-load"
            their General Work bid since it is a lump sum item. A
            heavy General Work bid price can be unfavorable to
            OCE due to the amount of money that must be initially
            paid to the Contractor and will increase the likelihood
            for disputes on other items as the job progresses.

      With respect to the fifty possible points for bidder experience and other

factors, evaluators were instructed to award a maximum of sixteen points for the

bidder's berm construction experience; a maximum of ten points each for the

bidder's wetland restoration and planting experience, and dewatering

experience; a maximum of eight points for the bidder's overall sequencing/site

management plan; a maximum of four points for the bidder's site remediation

experience; and a maximum of two points for the bidder's "Overall

Presentation."

      All four bids were evaluated under the identified scoring criteria. The

committee awarded A.P. a total score of 758 (447 price, 311 experience);

Abbonizio received a total score of 704.25 (547 price, 157.25 experience);

Mount had a total score of 661 (500 price, 161 experience); and JPC received a

total score of 632.25 (529 price, 103.25 experience). The overall scoring for the

four bids and the detailed scoring breakdown for A.P. and Mount is attached as

an Addendum to this opinion.

                                                                           A-1048-22
                                        8
         On August 22, 2022, Erick Doyle, OCE Bureau Chief, and David Bean,

ONRR Bureau Chief, sent a memorandum to the DREC Director attaching the

bid evaluation results for the Project. The memorandum stated that five of the

seven Evaluation Committee members ranked A.P. as having "the highest

overall score . . . based on the criteria set forth." It further stated that although

A.P.'s

              proposal was the costliest of those evaluated, [A.P.]'s
              contractor representative and contractor experience
              regarding earthen berm construction, wetlands and
              planting, dewatering, and site remediation consistently
              outranked all other bid submissions. [A.P.] provided
              detailed experience documentation in a concise manner
              consistent with the requirements detailed in Section
              1:08. Furthermore, the three other bid proposals were
              not concise bid packages demonstrating sufficient
              quality of experience that was specifically outlined
              within the bid specification which was essential for the
              evaluation process. To this, proposal packages lacked
              detailed information, such as previous project
              experience for Contractors or Subcontractors, or
              sequencing plans and affidavits. These issues were
              reflected in the Committee Evaluations scoring for
              experience and qualifications.

                    Thus, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 17:12-2.7, the
              evaluators recommended [A.P.]'s bid as the "most
              advantageous to the State, price and other factors
              considered."

                                                                              A-1048-22
                                         9
Doyle and Bean "concur[red] with the . . . [E]valuation [C]ommittee's results"

and recommended DREC award A.P. the contract for the Project. 1

      On September 1, 2022, the DREC Director issued a memorandum to all

bidders, advising the OCE had concluded its evaluation of the bids received for

the Project, and that "[f]ive of the seven evaluators granted A.P. . . . the highest

overall score . . . ." The DREC Director stated his review of the bid packages

and committee members' evaluations and recommendations reflected the

"analysis and ranking of the four bids" was "appropriate" and he concurred with

the evaluation committee's recommendation. The DREC Director informed the

bidders of "OCE's decision . . . to award" the Project contract to A.P.

      Mount filed a formal protest of the award of the Project contract , arguing

the award to A.P. was "arbitrary, capricious and/or unreasonable due to th[e]

exorbitant cost of [A.P.]'s bid," which was $8.2 million more than Mount's bid.

Mount also challenged the evaluation committee's determination that it had not

demonstrated sufficient experience in its bid documents.              Mount later

supplemented its bid protest, asserting that A.P.'s bid was materially defective

1
   Abbonizio subsequently withdrew its bid from consideration because its
"suppliers and subcontractors ma[de] several price increases [after] their
original quotation."

                                                                              A-1048-22
                                        10
because A.P. was not prequalified to perform "Special Miscellaneous Work" and

A.P. had not submitted certain financial forms.

      On November 18, 2022, DEP issued a final agency decision denying

Mount's bid protest and affirming the award of the contract to A.P. DEP stated

it had the authority to award the Project contract under N.J.S.A. 12:6A -1 and

-2, which authorizes DEP "to repair, reconstruct, or construct bulkheads,

seawalls . . . dunes and any or all appurtenant structures" on the Atlantic Ocean

"shore front" in New Jersey.

      DEP explained that "[t]o ensure the selected contractor met the specific

qualifications and experience necessary to conduct the highly specialized work

for this Project, OCE issued the solicitation under a 'most advantageous to the

State, price and other factors' award standard instead of a 'lowest responsive

bidder' standard," citing to N.J.S.A. 52:34-12(a)(g). DEP stated that factors such

as "the bidder's demonstrated earthen berm construction experience, wetland

restoration and planting experience, dewatering experience, and site remediation

experience, and overall sequencing/site management planning"

            were selected for evaluation because successful
            implementation of this Project of this size and scope
            requires that a contractor have demonstrated experience
            successfully implementing a dewatering system in
            tidally influenced areas, constructing an earthen berm
            or dike in similar conditions, managing the overall

                                                                            A-1048-22
                                       11
            sequencing/site management and phasing of such a
            large project while adhering to all permit restrictions
            and requirements, have the experience and expertise
            regarding the various wetland restoration, planting, and
            seeding requirements and timing restrictions, and
            managing a large-scale project in both cost and overall
            size.

      DEP disputed Mount's claims that A.P. was not prequalified, noting that

"both [A.P.] and Mount met the prequalification requirements" set forth in the

bid advertisement.    DEP also rejected Mount's claims that A.P. had not

submitted certain required forms, finding that the two forms A.P. did not submit

were not required to be provided with its bid. Therefore, "the fact that neither

was included did not constitute a defect—material or not—that the DEP

waived."

      DEP found the evaluation committee gave A.P. "the highest score, price

and other factors considered" and had given Mount "fewer points in two

categories, largely because it did not meet two material components of the

solicitation: wetlands experience and sequencing plans." Specifically, Mount

only provided information about one previous wetlands project that met the

minimum-required twenty-acre size, while A.P. "submitted two projects in this

category, one of which included [twenty-five plus] acres of wetland construction

while the other project contained over [twenty-one] acres of newly constructed

                                                                          A-1048-22
                                      12
wetlands." In addition, DEP stated "[E]valuation [C]ommittee members also

consistently found that Mount did not supply any sequencing/phasing plans as

required by the specifications, and the committee members scored Mount 's bid

accordingly." A.P. had included the required sequencing plans.

      According to DEP, "Mount's failure to submit the required sequencing

plans, coupled with its lack of experience regarding wetland restoration and

planting, did not demonstrate to [DEP] that it could successfully complete the

Project."   "Thus, since Mount's proposal failed to conform to the bid

solicitation's specifications, [DEP] awarded the contract to [A.P.], the highest-

scoring responsible bidder, price and other factors considered."

      On November 22, 2022, Mount requested DEP stay the Project contract

award pending appeal. DEP denied Mount's request. We permitted Mount to

file an emergent motion seeking a stay of the Project contract award and

thereafter granted Mount's motion for a stay pending appeal on January 6, 2023.

      On appeal, Mount asserts DEP acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, and

capriciously in relying on the Evaluation Committee's "subjective" scoring; the

evaluators ignored Mount's contractor representatives' experience; and its "bid

was not materially defective." Mount does not challenge the propriety of DEP's

                                                                           A-1048-22
                                      13
use of the "most advantageous to the State, price and other factors" standard

under N.J.S.A. 52:34-12(a)(g).

      Our review of "administrative actions is severely limited." George Harms

Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994) (citing Gloucester Cnty.

Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.J. 384, 390 (1983)). We "must

defer to an agency's expertise and superior knowledge of a particular field."

Thurber v. City of Burlington, 191 N.J. 487, 502 (2007) (quoting Greenwood v.

State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992)). We "intervene only in

those rare circumstances in which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with

its statutory mission or with other State policy." George Harms, 137 N.J. at 27.

An "[a]gency action will not be overturned unless the action is arbitrary,

capricious, or unreasonable."    In re State & Sch. Emps.' Health Benefits

Comm'ns' Implementation of Yucht, 233 N.J. 267, 279-80 (2018) (citing Barrick

v. State, Dep't of Treasury, 218 N.J. 247, 259 (2014)).          "The burden of

demonstrating that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious[,] or

unreasonable rests upon the person challenging the administrative action."

Seigel v. N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot., 395 N.J. Super. 604, 613 (App. Div. 2007).

                                                                          A-1048-22
                                      14
      "[W]e apply de novo review to an agency's interpretation of a statute or

case law." Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27

(2011) (citing Toll Bros. Inc., v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 173 N.J. 502, 549 (2002)).

      Our Supreme Court has consistently held that contract awards under

N.J.S.A. 52:34-12(a)(g) should be reviewed under the "gross abuse of discretion

standard." Barrick, 218 N.J. at 258 (citing Keyes Martin & Co. v. Dir., Div. of

Purchase & Prop., Dep't of Treasury, 99 N.J. 244, 252-53 (1985); Com. Cleaning

Corp. v. Sullivan, 47 N.J. 539, 548-49 (1966)). This includes contracts awarded

under N.J.S.A. 52:34-12(a)(g), which permits a contract to be awarded "to that

responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, will be most

advantageous to the State, price and other factors considered." N.J.S.A. 52:34-

12(a)(g); Barrick, 218 N.J. at 258; Keyes Martin, 99 N.J. at 252-53. Under this

higher standard, an appellate court "will not interfere in the absence of bad faith,

corruption, fraud or gross abuse of discretion." In re Protest of the Award of the

On-Line Games Prod. & Operation Servs. Cont., Bid No. 95-X-20175, 279 N.J.

Super. 566, 592 (App. Div. 1995) (quoting Com. Cleaning, 47 N.J. at 549).

      In turning to Mount's assertions, we are satisfied Mount has not

demonstrated the evaluation of the cost proposals was not objective. We are

unpersuaded by and find no precedential support for its argument that an

                                                                              A-1048-22
                                        15
objective evaluation of price requires a higher bid price to receive a lower score

in all instances, or that all bid prices must be scored according to the percentage

differences in price between bids. To the contrary, the Evaluation Committee

was given a structured evaluation template and criteria to score the costs

proposals. Furthermore, the instructions advised that prices for the different line

items could be evaluated differently. For example, a high "General Work" price

even as part of an overall lower bid price could result in a lower score because

"a heavy General Work bid price can be unfavorable to OCE due to the amount

of money that must be initially paid to the Contractor and will increase the

likelihood for disputes on other items as the job progresses." The record is

devoid of any evidence that the evaluators did not assess the proposals

objectively.

      Mount next contends DEP ignored its contractor representatives'

experience, pointing to three evaluators' score of zero points (out of a possible

two). However, two evaluators gave Mount the maximum two points, and two

evaluators gave Mount one point for that category. See Addendum Table #3.

Furthermore, Mount's proposal only included a spreadsheet listing its prior

projects and the names of its contractor representatives. In contrast, A.P.'s

proposal included "detailed resumes and descriptions of the experience of its

                                                                             A-1048-22
                                       16
contractor representatives." The divergent submissions provided a reasonable

basis for the difference in individual scores. In any event, Mount's score of six

points (out of a maximum of fourteen) for its contractor representative site

remediation experience was only seven points less than A.P.'s score of thirteen

in that category, but A.P.'s total score of 758 was 97 points higher than Mount's

total score of 661. Even if Mount had received the maximum possible fourteen

points for contractor representative site remediation experience, it would not

have changed the Evaluation Committee's recommendation.

      We are satisfied Mount has not demonstrated DEP grossly abused its

discretion in awarding the contract to A.P. as it has not established the

evaluation process was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. On-Line Games,

279 N.J. Super. at 592.

      In light of our determination to affirm the bid award, we need not address

Mount's assertion that DEP erred in finding Mount's bid was materially

defective. DEP's materiality determination was made in response to Mount's bid

protest, well after the evaluation of the bids and the bid awards. Since we have

concluded DEP was not arbitrary or capricious in its award of the contract to

A.P., it is immaterial what statements were made following the close of the

bidding process.

                                                                           A-1048-22
                                      17
Affirmed. The order staying the award of the contract is vacated.

                                                                    A-1048-22
                               18
                                         Addendum
                                           Table 1
                                 Total Scores for All Bidders

Eval-   A.P. (Bidder 2/C)   JPC (Bidder 4/A)        Mount (Bidder       Abbonizio (Bidder
uator   (Total Price:       (Total Price:           1/B)                3/D)
        $37,503,858)        $29,962,365)            (Total Price:       (Total Price:
                                                    $29,352,731)        $28,717,058)
        Pric   Exp. Total   Pric    Exp.    Total   Price Exp Tota      Pric Exp.     Total
        e                   e                               .     l     e
1       67     41     108   82      16      98      79      28    107   82     17     99

2       58     49.5   107.5 79      2.25    81.25   54      16    70    58    11.75        69.75

3       64     50     114   91      30      121     86      39    125   93    37           130

4       64     47     111   43      8       51      64      17    81    82    23           105

5       42     28     70    54      26      80      49      26    75    45    29           74

6       77     49     126   83      8       91      84      17    101   92    23           115

7       75     46.5   121.5 97      13      110     84      18    102   95    16.5         111.5

Total   447    311    758   529     103.2   632.2   500     161   661   547   157.2        704.2

                                    5       5                                 5            5

                                                                               A-1048-22
                                             19
                                        Table 2
                                 A.P. Score Breakdown

Eval        A.P. (Bidder 2/C) (Total Price:$37,503,858)
-     Price                                      Experience
uator Tota Ber Plan De-          Gen.     Ber Plant De-         Seq./   Con-     Con-        Ove
      l Bid m      t-    water Wor        m      -ing   water   Site    tracto   tracto      rall
      (70   (10    ing   -ing    k        (16    (10    -ing    Mgm     r Site   r           (2
      max max (5         (5      Exp.     max max) (10          t.      Reme     Rep.        max
      )     )      max max) (10           )             max)    Plan    d.       Site        )
                   )             max                            (8      Exp.     Reme
                                 )                              max)    (2       d.
                                                                        max)     Exp.
                                                                                 (2
                                                                                 max)
1     49     10    3      5      0        9     10      10      6       2        2           2

2     41     4     4      5      4        16    10      10      7.5     2        2           2

3     41     10    5      3      5        16    10      10      8       2        2           2

4     40     10    5      2      7        14    9       10      8       2        2           2

5     30     4     2      2      4        8     5       7       4       2        1           1

6     52     10    5      2      8        16    10      10      7       2        2           2

7     55     5     5      3      7        14    9.5     10      7       2        2           2

                                                                                 A-1048-22
                                          20
                                         Table 3
                                  Mount Score Breakdown

Eval      Mount (Bidder 1/B) (Total Price: $29,352,731)
-      Price                                Experience
uato   Tota Ber Plant De-          Gen.     Ber Plan       De-     Seq.   Con-     Con-        Ove
r      l Bid m      -      water Wor        m      t-ing   water   /      tracto   tracto      rall
       (70   (10 ing       -ing    k        (16    (10     -ing    Site   r Site   r           (2
       max) max (5         (5      Exp.     max max        (10     Mg     Reme     Rep.        max
             )      max) max) (10           )      )       max)    mt.    d.       Site        )
                                   max                             Plan   Exp.     Reme
                                   )                               (8     (2       d.
                                                                   max    max)     Exp.
                                                                   )               (2
                                                                                   max)
1      68    6      5      0       0        14     4       6       0      1        2           1

2      33    10     2      3       6        8      2.5     2.5     0      2        0           1

3      68    7      4      1       6        16     8       10      0      2        2           1

4      40    8      5      4       7        5      5       4       0      2        0           1

5      35    5      2      2       5        8      3       7       4      2        1           1

6      57    10     4      5       8        5      3       6       0      1        1           1

7      60    10     4      5       5        6      5       5       0      1        0           1

                                                                                   A-1048-22
                                            21