State Contracting, Procurement and Bid Protests

Overview

Combining Procurement Law and Government Relations

With decades of experience in government as well as private practice, RWL’s team of attorneys focus on state contracting, procurement and bid protests. The group has successfully represented hundreds of contractors and vendors at the Maryland state and local levels, from major national companies to smaller local firms. RWL is among the leading law firms in Maryland that practice both procurement law and government relations, offering clients a multifaceted legal representation.

Extensive Bid Protest Experience

Founding partner Scott Livingston has more than 35 years of experience in bid protests and RWL has been the noted firm of record in more than 50 docketed decisions published by the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals. Prior to private practice, Scott served as an Assistant Attorney General representing the State of Maryland on procurement issues. While as an Assistant Attorney General, Scott had a prominent role in drafting various procurement laws and COMAR regulations. He also is co-author of the “Principles of Maryland Procurement Law,” 29 U. Balt L. Rev. 1 (2000).

Government Contract Services

Bid protests and claims at the Procurement Officer, Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals, and judicial levels
Litigation avoidance strategies
Arbitration of disputes before the American Arbitration Association
Settlement of claims of all types, especially heavy and highway construction contracts
Compliance with Maryland ethics laws
Compliance with MBE rules and regulations

Procurement-Based Legal Services

Management of claims preparation, pricing, and litigation for prime contractors, owners, subcontractors, and sureties in public works construction
Development of proposals for state contracts in numerous areas. including health care, IT, correctional services, insurance, employment benefits, public-private partnerships, A/E, construction, Maryland Department of Transportation (port, airport, bridges, roads, etc.)

Contract Claims and Litigation

Substantial experience in claims preparation and litigation on behalf of government contract clients
Claims involving change orders, constructive changes, and equitable adjustments under various standard government clauses
Disputes over interpretation of contracts and rights and obligations of the parties

Other Procurement Related Activities

Appearances before tribunals that decide bid protests, including Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals, Maryland Circuit and Appellate Courts and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Participated in matters before the Commission on Modernization of Maryland Procurement (report issued December, 2016)
Upon the request of elected officials, provided testimony before procurement committees at the Maryland General Assembly

Contact us at 301.951.0150 or slivingston@rwllaw.com to learn more about RWL’s State Contracting, Procurement and Bid Protests practice.

Law Review Articles

MSBCA Cases

Maryland Department of Budget and Management

Catalyst Rx. (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 2759, 2762, 2768, 2780, 2784 (2012)
Caremark PCS, MSBCA No. 2544, 2548, 2568 (2007)
Daily Computers, Inc. (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 1727 (1993) [HEADNOTE: It is the factual determination on a case by case basis of what a reasonable bidder knew or should have known at a given time in the bidding process which commences the running of the seven day period. A reasonable diligent bidder must have facts available to it to actually or constructively know its basis for protest.]

Maryland Department of General Services

Correctional Services Corp. & Youth Services (Contract Claim), MSBCA-No. 2509 (2006) [HEADNOTE: The Board of Contract Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal on a contract claim where no final agency decision has been issued. The right to appeal on a deemed denied basis is limited by law to construction contracts.]
BEKA Industries, Inc. (Contract Claim), MSBCA No. 2132 (2000) [HEADNOTE: By issuing the plans and specification, the State impliedly warrants that the plans and specifications are adequate and sufficient.]
Keller Brothers, Inc./Accubid Excavations, Inc. Joint Venture (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 1946 (1996), [HEADNOTE: Where a bid bond submitted by the low bidder did not provide for automatic extension of the surety’s obligation for up to 90 additional days without consent of the surety, the bid was properly determined to be nonresponsive pursuant to COMAR 21.06.07.02B.]

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Policy Studies, Inc. (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 2806 (2012)
Nutrition Management Services Company (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 1810, 1823, [HEADNOTE: Price proposals in a procurement by competitive sealed proposals must be evaluated pursuant to the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP.]

Maryland Department of Human Resources

Legal Aid (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 2826 (2012)
Legal Aid (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 2829 (2012)
Active Network (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 2781 (2011)
Accenture, LLP (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 2640, 2669 (2010)

Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

Trinity Services Group, Inc., MSBCA No. 2917, 2931, 2935 (2015)

Division of State Documents

Electronic Commerce and Catalogue Services, MSBCA No. 2100 (1999) [HEADNOTE: A solitication may be canceled and all proposals (in this case the one remaining proposal) rejected if it is fiscally advantageous or otherwise in the State’s best interest.]

Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development

Housing and Development Software, LLC (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 2289 (2002) [HEADNOTE: Rejection of all proposals and resolicitation by the procuring agency is permissible where such action results from a reasonable decision by a control agency that the contract recommended for approval by the procuring agency should not be placed on the agenda of the Board of Public Works for approval.]
Housing and Development Software, LLC (Bid Protest), MSBCA No. 2247 (2001) [HEADNOTE: The General Procurement Law and COMAR require that in negotiated procurements selection be based on a determination of the proposal or best and final offer which is the most advantageous to the State, considering price and other evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.]

University of Maryland College Park

Trigen-Cinergy Solutions of College Park LLC (Contract Claim), MSBCA No. 2315, 2316 (2003) [HEADNOTE: As one of a series of related agreements to secure long-term energy services for the University with financing provided by the Maryland Economic Development Corporation (MEDCO), MEDCO entered into a design and construction agreement (DCA) with Trigen-Cinergy Solutions of College Park LLC (Trigen-Cinergy) to provide construction services on behalf of the University. The Board, however, lacked jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the DCA because when MEDCO is engaged in the financing of transactions through the issuances of bonds, the provisions of the General Procurement Law do not apply as a result of an exemption for MEDCO from the provisions of the General Procurement Law under Section 5-214(a) of Article 83A (MEDCO’s enabling legislation). This exemption from the General Procurement Law exists even though the University is the intended beneficiary of the DCA between MEDCO and Trigen-Cinergy.]