Beltway ruling paves way for Las Vegas Paving

Jeff Schweers

Wednesday, Oct. 8, 1997 | 10:57 a.m.

Talk about your road rage.

The County Commission has been handed a ruling from District Judge Gene Porter that pits it between two giants of gravel, Las Vegas Paving Corp. and Meadow Valley Construction.

Porter granted a permanent injunction Monday on behalf of Las Vegas Paving barring the county from entering into a $30 million contract with Meadow Valley Construction on a beltway segment delayed since August over bid irregularities.

The commission must now decide whether to appeal the judge's ruling, grant the contract to Las Vegas Paving and face legal action from Meadow Valley or rebid the project with modified specifications.

"We're not going to appeal," said Mary-Anne Miller, a deputy district attorney who serves as the county's counsel. "There just isn't an appetite for that."

The Clark County Public Works Department will present commissioners with its recommendation Oct. 21.

The disputed contract was for a portion of the beltway from Pecos Road to Green Valley Parkway. Las Vegas Paving had the low bid by $830,000 at $29.18 million, but failed to provide paperwork to qualify for local bidder preference.

The second low bidder, American Asphalt, also failed to file the needed paperwork, and on the advice of its legal counsel, the commission voted Sept. 16 to give the contract to Meadow Valley.

Las Vegas Paving then sought and got a court injunction stopping the county from granting the contract to Meadow Valley. Porter said that Las Vegas Paving had the better bid, despite the omission of an affidavit proving its local bidder status.

Commissioner Myrna Williams said Las Vegas Paving deserves the contract.

"I'd prefer always to get the best deal possible for the taxpayer and the best deal possible is the low bid," Williams said.

Williams, who sat on the 1985 Nevada Assembly committee that created the bidder preference law, said, "I think it was the right ruling."

Porter chaired that committee.

"People up here don't agree with me, but having been on that committee I believe (the ruling) is right in line with the intent," Williams said. "Once someone proves they are entitled to the bidder's preference, I don't know why they have to keep doing it every time."

But county staff attorneys Miller and Holly Gordon worry that Porter's interpretation of the bidder preference statute muddies the bidding process and opens the door for more litigation on future board decisions.

Porter directed the county to reconsider its bid to Las Vegas Paving because by law he can't tell an awarding body who to grant a contract to.

"He just can stop us from giving it to Meadow Valley," Gordon said.

Gordon said she thinks there are grounds for an appeal, but it would be up to the County Commission to decide what course of action to take.

"It's a technical possibility but not real attractive," said Les Henley, construction management division manager for Public Works. "It amounts to spending more county money and more county time to end up with a higher construction cost, so it's not a realistic option."

If the commission grants the contract to Las Vegas Paving, Meadow Valley could appeal and get a restraining order stopping the county from executing the contract.

"We get a restraining order and we would be in limbo again," Miller said.

Henley said the board may feel that Las Vegas Paving is entitled to the contract because it was the low bidder per the judge's order.

But there are pros from a technical point of view to rebidding the project with an additional section of roadway to U.S. 95 added, Henley said. That would add about $30 million to the project -- money that would be spent anyway on a section that is scheduled to be bid on in the next month to three months.