Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitter215 Beltway widening contract sparks controversy
Published Tuesday, April 21, 2009 | 7:56 p.m.
Updated Wednesday, April 22, 2009 | 12:32 p.m.
Steve Sisolak
Beltway widening
UPDATED STORY: Company that lost 215 Beltway paving bid sues county
Construction to widen the northern 215 Beltway hit a bump in the road Tuesday.
The Clark County Commission went against the advice of its staff and a deputy district attorney and threw out the lowest bid of $112.2 million submitted by Fisher Sand and Gravel Co. It awarded the contract to Las Vegas Paving, whose bid came in $4.6 million higher.
Las Vegas Paving had filed a protest with the county claiming two of Fisher’s subcontractors lacked the necessary licenses to perform highway construction.
Attorneys for both companies and the county weighed in on their interpretation of the Nevada Administrative Code that requires general contractors to carry the A-2 license — an engineering subclassification allowing work on highways.
At question is whether the code requires subcontractors to also carry a general contractor’s license.
Wade Gochnour, attorney for Las Vegas Paving, argued that it does.
“In order to do this type of work on highways, they need to have that specialized engineering knowledge,” he said.
The state’s code is vague, said Commissioner Steve Sisolak, who proffered the recommendation to throw out Fisher’s bid.
“It’s got to be a responsible bid and I think I wasn’t getting clear enough legal advice ... whether or not the subcontractors need the A-2 license in their specialty,” he said. “It doesn’t seem like the guy who would excavate for a pipe is the same guy who would do excavating for a freeway.”
Las Vegas Paving also sought a decision from the Nevada State Contractors Board but withdrew its request yesterday.
Fisher’s attorney, Bill Curran, said his client likely will take its case to District Court.
Curran said he was stunned by the commission’s decision, in part because the protest was filed after the five-day window set by state law.
“Not only was there a $4.6 million difference in the bid amount but, purely on the grounds of procedure, the protest was filed too late,” he said.
The law was enacted in 2003 to prevent bid protests from delaying projects.
If the commission’s decision stands, it would require subcontractors to carry a general contractor’s license.
“If I was a subcontractor in any kind of work, I’d be worried,” Curran said.
Court action could delay the start of the project of converting the existing roadway into a four-lane highway from Tenaya Way to Decatur Boulevard with interchanges at Jones and Decatur.
Commissioner Larry Brown said he hopes the courts would expedite any proceedings in the interest of a public project.
Brown cast the lone vote against awarding the contract to Las Vegas Paving, saying Deputy District Attorney Mary Miller confirmed the bid met the standard criteria.
“There’s no question as soon as we opened that agenda today that there was going to be litigation on either side regardless of the decision,” he said. “I just want to get the job on the streets, create the jobs and get the beltway going.”
Discussion: 42 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- CityCenter unveils Crystals high-end retail district
- Sarah Palin wasn’t a disaster, but Obama is
- Fontainebleau lenders sue construction companies over liens
- CityCenter’s Mandarin Oriental makes Vegas debut
- Limo drivers’ suit over wages gets class action status
- Kimbo Slice not enjoying cutting weight for first time
- Kruger may soon seek more disciplined shot selection
- AG says any Station Casinos trustee must be licensed by regulators
- As national jobless rate improves, LV sees signs of trouble
- Jim Gibbons vs. Harry Reid: Health care plan ignites dispute
Blogs
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Superintendents want state to immediately seek Race to Top funds
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The great Jennifer debate (1 Comment)
The Kats Report
From Eva Longoria Parker to a cluster of execs, crowd takes a shine to Crystals (2 Comments)
Elsewhere
Harry Reid's recipe for getting health-care deal done (9 Comments)
UNLV in at No. 11 in SI's college hoops power rankings (3 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
Top Chef Episode 13: A few good chefs
Gray Matter
Fight weekend in Las Vegas and Thanksgiving (3 Comments)
Calendar »
- 5 Sat
- 6 Sun
- 7 Mon
- 8 Tue
- 9 Wed
-
The Ultimate Fighter 10 Finale at the Pearl
The Pearl at the Palms | 4 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Willie Nelson at Planet Hollywood Theatre for the Performing Arts
Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino | 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Cash'd Out at Aliante Station
Aliante Station Casino and Hotel | 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Brooks & Dunn at the Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Ron White performs at the Mirage
Terry Fator Theatre
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
I dont know if this was a good decision or not. But, lawyers were saying the low bid was a legal bid.
Mr Sisolak headed the opposition. There is an old saying. "follow the money!" Can any one check to see if any of these two companies gave campaign contibutions to Mr Sisolak or any of the other comissioners?
Somebody is getting paid off or already owes a favor and the chit is being called in. This commission is dirty.
Corruption is alive and prospering in Clark County!
Las Vegas Paving is a large established contractor giving campaign donations and greasing the palms of elected "leaders". LV Paving is going to make easy money with federal stimulus funds......
G-string.......?
Let's see, the County Commission:
(1) Disregarded the advice of its attorney;
(2) Disregarded the time limitation for protests;
(3) Chose the more expensive bidder; and
(4) Bought itself litigation and project delays.
There mu$t be $ome great rea$on$ they cho$e to vote the way they did.
The Clark County commission is one of the most corrupt in the nation.
As a taxpayer of Las Vegas we are amazed how the Clark County Board of Commissioners is trying to award a project to another firm and spending $4.6 million dollars more of taxpayers' money than they should.
If we as taxpayers' allow this type of wasteful spending to continue then our economy will take much longer to heal and many more in this industry will suffer. It may not seem like much to us in this industry, but $4.6 million will allow another project to be built that will benefit the taxpayer. Google political contributions and note who donates heavily to the Democratic Party. It would appear that at the least the Commissioner Steve Sisolak should've abstained from voting let alone prospering the vote to throw out the lowest responsible bid. Politics working at tit's best.
America let alone Clark County can't afford to give $4.6 million away just because it's not their money. We work hard for our money and we are sick and tired of politicians throwing our money away. During the good times plenty of waste occurred which is why American and Clark County are facing serious financial problems with large budget shortfalls.
This is being circulated to the media and thousands more so that the residents of Clark County who are suffering more and more each day so they can to see how our elected officials are doing business as usual, wasting taxpayers' money with no regard to costs or budgets.
As a taxpayer, the lowest bid should be awarded the project, not the bid that costs $4.6 million dollars more. The firm who is low is also building many other projects and they are qualified and responsible to build the project.
Come Election time, Steve Sisolak, you're outta here!
It amazes me how our commissioners can freely spend tax payer dollars, without blinking an eye! Our economy is presently suffering, and our commissioners choose a company that is charging so much more of our money! It seems to me that there is definitely something very fishy going on here! How can the Commission even allow the protest from Las Vegas Paving have any merit? Aren't there any rules to be followed? If they submitted their protest too late, their protest should not even be a consideration! Doesn't the Commission have to follow any rules? These actions are extremely inappropriate and will definitely have an impact come Election Day!
Wow. I wonder how much the local unions or others paid this corrupt commission. Sisolak (aka Paulie Walnuts) even had to hide his face when he made the motion. I'm ashamed of these people for forgetting about their fiduciary responsibilities and oath of office.
Based on Las Vegas Paving's own argument, they are currently performing work on highways with subcontractors who are not properly licensed to perform the work. The argument presented by Las Vegas Paving was entirely without merit, and that was very clear. The commissioners ignored their attorneys, they ignored their staff - why even have these people work for them? Not only that, but Tom Collins was rude and downright mean to the purchasing agent. He berated her because he did not like what she said, even though it was factual. He wants things his way, legal or not. ALL SUBCONTRACTORS - BEWARE - YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SAY YOU CAN'T WORK ON HIGHWAYS!!!!! I would be very concerned if I were you!!!
Really now, does any of this surprise anyone here..I mean come on. Politics and corruption go hand in hand. One lilttle tid bit...guess what the political affiliation is for all 7 of the County Commissioners?? Every single Commissioner is a Democrat...every single one!! So, voters of Clark County please remember that the next time you are voting for a candidate. Looks like "The Magnificent Seven" of Clark County are just as corrupt ad the Dems in Washington...makes me wanna puke!!
So let me get this straight...Fisher's bid was thrown out because their subcontractors do not have a A-2 license. The job was then passed on to Las Vegas Paving...whom by the way, THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS DO NOT HOLD AN A-2 LICENSE EITHER! wow! what a joke!
Remember those funny tax protests one week ago? Hah, those dummies complained about over taxing, over spending, not listening to the people.
Let us not forget Tom Collins' role in this debacle. He was the other vocal council member playing dumb in order to cloud the issue and convince himself and the board that he had reason to vote in favor of Las Vegas Paving. The legal advice was straight forward, NRS is black and white, and any common sense leads to the conclusion that it is illogical to expect subcontractor's to hold general contractor's licenses.
"Family Roast" analogies aside, no one is buying it Tom Collins.
Question - why is someone who is a contractor AND a member of the electrical union voting on a conflict between a union and non-union contractor? He should have excused himself from the hearing due to a conflict of interest.
The U.S. Attorney needs to start the investigation. This proves Las Vegas is still more corrupt than Chicago. What an area to actually lead in.
Many of the responders here do not have all the facts. There where other issues with the apparent low bid from Fisher's that where not discussed in the article. Further more LVPC is one of the oldest and most respected contractors in this valley. I have worked in the public works construction field on both sides of the fence here in the valley for 10 years. With my experience, I believe the tax payers are getting the best of both worlds an honest quality contractor that will do good work and not change order the owner to death. With a $4.6 million dollar difference in bids, I would say Fisher left something out and would have found some way to change order the county for every dollar plus some more. So, consider ourselves lucky that the work may stay local and we will get our beltway finished on time and with in the contractors stated bid amount.
4lux, I wish you would expand on what the "other issues were". The purchasing agent and the county attorney both said Fishers bid was clean. There were NO other issues. And you can't state any either. The only other issue was that Las Vegas Paving did NOT file a protest in time!!!! As far as locals doing the work, all the subcontractors and are locals, and many have lived here all their lives!!!! Your underlying statement is simply that the job will be built by unions. Well check your history, a large percentage of that beltway has been built by non union contractors - on time - under budget - and with HIGH quality.
Wow.........I'm shocked none of the right-wing-nuts who usually post didn't somehow tie this to Obama!!
4lux: Your sole defense is based on assumptions (Fisher will change order job/LVP will not, Fisher will do crappy work/LVP will not), etc. Besides, a $4.6 million difference is less than 4%...That's nothing!
Again, the commissioners did the taxpayers a grave diservice yesterday. Shame on you!
So they just took $4.6 million and threw it out the window. Thats tax payer money and these swines need to be put out of office. The exact same amount of work would be completed by the contractors. This is waste! We have once again been robbed! Someone needs to shut this down before its begun and take the lower bid.
Surprised? Are you kidding? The Mendenhall family, and its Mormon public project construction mafia is still alive and kicking. Local politicians know full well, concrete and paving contracts go to the Mendenhall family and no one else. 4Lux, I respect your expertise but I've been here a long time (family also is involved in construction) and I'm sure that Mendenhall is probably the best to do the work but anyone that thinks this was going to be a fair fight to begin with is fooling themselves. "Screw the staff, screw the attorney's opinion the Mendenhall family gave me money (either campaign or under the table) . . . they get my vote!"
4lux i have worked in the las vegas valley for 15 years and have used las vegas paving on many of my jobs. In the past they have done quality work. Now take a look at their present work. That design build job on I-15 is one of the most terrible looking jobs I have ever seen. Look at the sound walls on the 95fwy North of Craig.Look and see how out of plum some of the man-doors are not to mention the quality of the concrete work. Then take a look at the walls south of Craig that Meadow Valley Contrators (a non union contractor) built. Also Las Vegas Paving is notorius for bringing out the change order book. They even smile when they do it. So dont't think for one moment the county is going to get a quality job and that not only did the commisoners piss away over four million I'll bet by the time LVP gets done it will between 5&51/2 million.
For those taxpayers who want to slam Las Vegas Paving take a look at your lowest bidder...
"Two officers of a Dickinson-based company have pleaded not guilty to federal tax fraud and conspiracy charges.
Fisher Sand and Gravel vice president Michael Fisher and chief financial officer Amiel Schaff entered the pleas yesterday in Bismarck. The company is accused of evading income tax payments between 2001 and 2004.
The company operates in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Colorado and ArKansas.
The defendants are accused of making fake entries on the company's corporate books. Prosecutors say that allowed them to conceal payments to Fisher and his family members for construction expenses, credit card bills, vacations and other expenses."
4lux, my mistake. LVP did the sound walls on 95 north of Cheyenne. Meadow Valley did the walls south of Cheyenne.
Concrete-clad
The legal advice was not straightforward..and no one suggested that all subcontractors need a General-A license (which covers all subclassifications), it was argued that a sub should have the SUB-classification A2 if they also work on highways, along with their other sub-class licenses. If it wasn't meant to be followed then why would the NSCB have that sub-class at all. It was a sub-class license that should be required not the GeneralA.
And Tom Collins should not have to recuse himself from a matter that was brought due to license issues, not union or non-union ones.
butch p,I am curious to the details of the poor workmanship on the I-15 Design Build job. Please enlighten me to your observations. Plus if you don't know LVP is not doing the structural concrete NCC is self preforming the work with very few ex-LVP employees.
I'm actually learning a lot here, (except for the campaign contribution question.) I have to plead ignorance on the licensing issue. So forgive me if the next questions sounds silly.
What would stop a contractor from getting all the licenses necessary after being awarded the contract? Couldn't they be given a short period of time to produce them? And if not,then award the contract to the next lowest bidder?
ok people....look around, you think Las Vegas is really any different awarding contracts like this. The East coast "invented" them.Las Vegas does what every other state has already been doing.
Let's look at the time limits that any contactor has protest the bid after bid date and bid time. Did the second, third, or fourth bidder protest the bid with in the statutory limitations? Read the article, no.
The use of A-2 licenses by subcontractors isn't an enforceable due to this statue being ambiguous. The NRS can't be interpreted, it is law. If the law is ambiguous, the courts will award to lowest bidder not the second bidder.
Subcontractors within my experience in the Valley have not had to carry an A-2 classification until this project dispute arose the County Commissioners voted to award to 2nd bidder. This is about one of the dumbest Commissioner votes I've heard this body make. They're setting a precedence that will add billions to future work due to insurance requirements the A-2 license carries that subcontractors don't usually carry.
Who thinks that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th bidder listed subcontractors with A2 Highway license for excavating? I know where I work and we've done millions upon millions in NDOT work, this is a first. Definition of Excavation is obvious if you understand the language used. I have to ask, are anyone of you trying say that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th bidder plan on excavating one hundred percent of all excavations? Not a chance, any prime contractor unless bid that way at bid time never assume liability for providing excavation for their subcontractors scope of work. Unless someone is willing to donate this work and take all the risk, the subcontractors will be providing their own excavations. Shoot, I'd provide a new claims service, notices given can be withdrawn, notice not given are fatal entitlements. I'd be writing delay after delay notice for compensable delays and extended overheard.
I think we can all agree that both parties involved in this dispute provide quality work and they both have good reputations. I can also say we can all agree that the local Fisher Industries group provides excellent workmanship and builds a quality project. Look at the project located in Henderson, Nevada names "Ascaya", a $260 million plus project then look at Galena Creek in Washoe County, 800 million projects. These are just a few examples of projects which required extensive design built abilities, below budget and nice work. Look at the work the 2nd bidder provides, they themselves are a landmark company here, but this doesn't provide them with benefits in the public bidding sector.
As far as Fisher people being charged with a crime, a pier of jurors will decide that fact. Remember, people are innocent until proven otherwise. This is America, not a third world country.
Continued: Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
What I can say is; Google all the involved parties and see for yourself who contributes monies to the Democratic Party? Google who is part of the Board of Regents? .Who contributes to local political members who proffered the vote? Smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, it is a duck. The era of public information and sometime private information is wonderful these days; you have the world at your fingertips.
The point being to the entire dispute, taxpayers' paying $4.6 million dollars for a project when the lowest bidder is qualified and met the statutory provisions Clark County has always followed until this bid dispute. This will be overturned in court or the commissioners will be forced to reject all bids and the project will be re-advertised and rebid. Should the later of two apply the bids will come in substantially less and we the taxpayers will benefit.
Lastly, we the people need to vote people out of office who choose to take their interest before us the taxpayers'. Just because they're in office doesn't make them smart, look at the economy and look what we're all facing. The old system isn't working and the new system is clearly broke. We need to voice our opinions to the suit and ties and let them know, we're done with their ways. American Taxpayers' first, greed and corruption are done.
If I understand the argument the 2nd bidder made. An A2 Highway Contractors license is a prerequisite for subcontractors to bid and for the project to be awarded to the prime. Failure to hold an A2 license will result in the lowest bid being rejected and each low bid thereafter will be rejected until all subcontractors are licensed under the classification of work being performed, i.e. A2 Highway if working in a highway, A1 Airport if working on an Airport?
If this is the case then does that mean that all subcontractors on the Runway project were holding the NAC 624 - A1 licenses as prescribed by the Licensing board?
NAC 624 - 1. AIRPORTS (subclassification A-1): The construction, alteration and repair of airports, including any navigational equipment, lights, beacons, markers, taxiways, runways, hangars and terminals
Was not Royal a sub on the Airport Runway?
They hold A - License Number: 0035888 - General Engineering and C-2 License Number: 0035890 - Electrical.
Business Primary Name: VELLUTINI CORPORATION DBA License Monetary Limit: $10,000,000.00
Fictitious Business Name: ROYAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
Business Address: 8481 CARBIDE CT
SACRAMENTO, CA 95828
Phone Number: (916)226-2100
Status: Active
Status Date: 07/11/2008 (mm/dd/yyyy)
Origin Date: 07/02/1993 (mm/dd/yyyy)
Expiration Date: 07/31/2009 (mm/dd/yyyy)
Business Type: Corporation
Classification(s): A - GENERAL ENGINEERING
Acme, they provided the concrete paving.
They hold A-General Engineering Classification #License Number: 0054578.
License Number: 0054578 Current Date: 04/22/2009 09:07 PM(mm/dd/yyyy)
Business Primary Name: ACME CONCRETE PAVING INC License Monetary Limit: Unlimited
Business Address: 4124 E BROADWAY
SPOKANE, WA 99202
Phone Number: (509)242-1234
Status: Active
Status Date: 09/30/2008 (mm/dd/yyyy)
Origin Date: 09/17/2002 (mm/dd/yyyy)
I don't see the A1 Classification numbering for these two.
What about 2nd bidder, do they hold an A1 - Airports and are working on the Airport. License Number: 0005507 Business Type: Corporation
Classification(s): AB - GENERAL ENGINEERING & GENERAL BUILDING
What about hiring locals? Are all the subs proposed on this project local? One has to wonder.
The cost of $4.6 million plus changes seems to be excessive and wasting taxpayers more money.
-----(in_sider)"Surprised? Are you kidding? The Mendenhall family, and its Mormon public project construction mafia is still alive and kicking. Local politicians know full well, concrete and paving contracts go to the Mendenhall family and no one else."-----
What does the Mendenhall family being Mormon have to do with this discussion in any way? Next question, it's quite obvious LVP has lost bids for concrete and paving jobs in the past so saying those contracts go to them and only them is just ridiculous.
Seriously people, there isn't much work out there so these contractors are fighting for everything they can get. It has nothing to do with "merit". It's business! In my opinion everyone should quit whining about "greasing the hands of dirty politicians" and start taking notes! Everyone keeps complaining about Las Vegas being corrupt... LEAVE!!! Everyone knows politicians and lawyers in general are known to be somewhat crooked! Why is everyone acting so shocked and flabbergasted now? Where have you all been? Lala land? It's time to wake up and look around... it's called the REAL WORLD!
I beleive this is the bases of the protest.
NRS 338.142 Notice of protest of award of contract: Period for filing; contents; posting and disposition of bond or security; stay of action; immunity of public body from liability to bidder.
1. A person who bids on a contract may file a notice of protest regarding the awarding of the contract with the authorized representative designated by the public body within 5 business days after the date the bids were opened by the public body or its authorized representative.
2. The notice of protest must include a written statement setting forth with specificity the reasons the person filing the notice believes the applicable provisions of law were violated.
3. A person filing a notice of protest may be required by the public body or its authorized representative, at the time the notice of protest is filed, to post a bond with a good and solvent surety authorized to do business in this state or submit other security, in a form approved by the public body, to the public body who shall hold the bond or other security until a determination is made on the protest. A bond posted or other security submitted with a notice of protest must be in an amount equal to the lesser of:
(a) Twenty-five percent of the total value of the bid submitted by the person filing the notice of protest; or
(b) Two hundred fifty thousand dollars.
4. A notice of protest filed in accordance with the provisions of this section operates as a stay of action in relation to the awarding of any contract until a determination is made by the public body on the protest.
5. A person who makes an unsuccessful bid may not seek any type of judicial intervention until the public body has made a determination on the protest and awarded the contract.
6. Neither a public body nor any authorized representative of the public body is liable for any costs, expenses, attorney's fees, loss of income or other damages sustained by a person who makes a bid, whether or not the person files a notice of protest pursuant to this section.
7. If the protest is upheld, the bond posted or other security submitted with the notice of protest must be returned to the person who posted the bond or submitted the security. If the protest is rejected, a claim may be made against the bond or other security by the public body in an amount equal to the expenses incurred by the public body because of the unsuccessful protest. Any money remaining after the claim has been satisfied must be returned to the person who posted the bond or submitted the security.
(Added to NRS by 2003, 2410)
The question is, did the 2nd bidder file a timely protest notice?
I would agree with low bidder if protest wasn't filed timely.
I also would think that the County should reject all bids and re-bid the project. By doing such, all the pricing is known and we as the taxpayer would see further savings.
its2hot-
Holding a General Engineering A license encompasses all the subclassifications, therefore if you hold an A you would therefore have an A1, A2, and so forth, that's why it's a subclass under a General A. So yes if Royal had an A license it covered the A1 subclass. I wouldn't make such a comment unless I knew how it worked.
And just because Fisher's attorney says the protest wasn't timely doesn't make it so..of course he's going to say anything he can to justify why he got paid to defend something he lost. I don't believe the Commission would risk all the retribution and just willy-nilly make a decision this big without having sufficient basis. Some of us know more about this than others, but unless you were "behind the scenes" and worked for one of the entities involved, enough already, a court of law will decide.
I noticed that Rory Reid didn't say a word during the discussion but voted to award to the second low bidder. Isn't he an attorney and why didn't he state his reason for going against the county attorney's recommendation? Does he not think people notice this?
I've watched the video of the actual meeting. Does anyone know what NRS rule was used to determine Fisher was non-responsive?
Don't let your children grow up to be Clark county commissioners.
LV1-
Well said. Thank you for insight on the classifications.
Contractors seeking monetary damages for rejection of their bids generally face a steep uphill battle. As explained in Garling Construction, Inc. v. City of Shellsburg, 641 N.W.2d 522, 523 (Iowa 2002):
Although a public contractor whose low bid is wrongfully rejected by a government entity is often held to have standing to prosecute an action for injunction, mandamus, or declaratory judgment, it is less frequently held that there is a remedy for damages in such cases, the basic reasoning being that while equitable, extraordinary, or declarative relief may serve the public interest by preventing the award and execution of a contract for an excessive amount, permitting damages in such cases serves the bidder's interest alone, and is contrary to the public interest the competitive bidding laws were designed to protect, further burdening a treasury already injured by paying too high a price for goods and services.
The Garling court thus held that an unsuccessful bidder lacked standing to sue for monetary damages. Id.
Similarly, New York courts have barred a low bidder from recovering damages from municipality that rejected its bid. A.F.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority, 1999 WL 1417210 at *10 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 1999), citing Termite Control Corp. v. Horowitz, 28 F.3d 1335, 1343 (2d. Cir. 1994)).
The mere appearance of impropriety in the government agency's review of bids is not grounds to disturb the agency's finding, absent fraud or actual favoritism. In re Conduit & Foundation Corp. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 495 N.Y.S.2d 340, 342 (1985). But, when actual fraud, corruption or favoritism has influenced the conduct of officials or when the very object and integrity of the competitive bidding process is defeated by the conduct of officials, a contractor may have standing to sue in the public interest as a private attorney general. Spinello Construction Co. v. Manchester, 189 Conn. 539, 544 (1983); Unisys Corp. v. Department of Labor, 220 Conn. 689, 694 (1991).
The contractor must bring its action timely to recover damages. A contractor may not recover damages after the project has been completed. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Clark County, 94 Nev. 116, 119 (1978). The Nevada Supreme Court reasoned: "A timely challenge is compatible with the public interest since it serves to force compliance with the purpose of the bidding procedure. After the project is completed, however, it is difficult to perceive how the public interest is served by investing the low bidder with a cause of action for damages. The public has already paid the difference between the lowest bid and the bid that was accepted. The taxpayer should not be further penalized." Id. at 119.
Good day!
Could the DA have been more clear on the statement of the classifications of the subs being okay and within the laws of the state of Nevada???
Tom Collins "DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS COMING OUTTA MY MOUTH????"
should i say it really slow and in sign language???
"HERE'S YOUR SIGN!!!"
We understand Tom Collins and what is going on with the Commissioners. The mere fact that the 2nd bid was awarded this project is the issue.
Clark County Board of Commissioners is going against principal and law. It is kind of like DOA spending 1.1 million more for the new Economy Lot when a protest was filed against the low bid. The low bid didn't hold an A-General Engineering Licenses thus was rejected and 2nd bid was awarded the project. Neither the 2nd or 3rd (LVP) bid should've been awarded this contract, the building and were canopies were the primary aspect of the contract. The remaining work was more money but wasn't the primary scope or focus of the project.
I would hope that during these economic struggles Clark County is having that who ever wins the outcome that either party maintains good bids and not drive down the market as has been in the past.
We need to keep in mind that we are all here to make money, we opted construction to make money. Keep it friendly, professional, to the point, and document the process. Times have changed since we all started in the business, a notice given can be with drawn, and notice not given is fatal. It is still about making money.
Either party in the suit will win, Fisher will win lost profits, overhead, and costs. LVP if awarded the project will earn 4.6 million, change orders, contract award delay and any other entitlement proven.
God Bless America and Politicians. But not for politicians that the public sector in the Heavy Highway Construction market would be broke. Thank you for the profit.
Keep in mind, thy who knows the rule book the best wins at the game. And yes this is a game and a hobby, we're just paid to to do a hobby and spends countless hours reading the rule book, the CONTRACT!
TRICK QUESTION????
HOW DO YOU MAKE $20MILLION ON A PROJECT WITHOUT EVER MOBILIZING OR PERFORMING ANY WORK????
MR. SHORT POTROAST OR MR. SISSYLACKS COULD HELP ANSWER THIS????
OK OK "BE A NON UNION LOW BIDDER ON A CLARK COUNTY PROJECT, AND HOPE THE CORRUPT 6 ARE STILL COMMISSIONERS!!!"
I THINK NON UNION CONTRACTOR MAY HAVE HIT THE JACKPOT IN VEGAS!!!! MEGABUCKS!!! FREE MONEY FOR THE NON UNION CONTRACTOR AND WE CAN'T FORGET ABOUT THE CORRUPT 6 ((((SHHHHHH!!! UNDER THE TABLE))!!!! GRANTED THE UNION CHECKS CLEAR!!
After watching this hearing it was apparent that Tom Collins and Steve Sisolak went too far out of their way in favor of Las Vegas Paving. They did their best to manufacture reasons to override the recommendation of their staff and the assistant district attorney in order to push the Beltway construction award in favor of LV Paving. A serious investigation of this award needs to be undertaken. Start with each commissioner who voted in favor of LV Paving being required to justify their vote. Ignorance, as Mr. Sisolak wanted to plead, should have resulted in his taking the recommendation of the commission staff.
Blatant hanky panky is on the rise again in Las Vegas!
The District Attorney was right.
As a General Contractor I cannot provide a bid as a sub contractor to another General Contractor.
Only a Sub Contractor can bid to a General. If a General bids a job then he has to use a minimum of 4 individual trades licensed in different specialties.
When the County is suffering a financial short fall, it seems that every effort would be used to bring in the savings. Home many pay checks would be saved with County employees using this additional 4.6 Million.
Congrat's to Commissioner Brown, he seems to be the only one with his head out of his hind end, giving him a clearer view point without a crappy outlook on life.