Judge: Protest of 215 Beltway paving bid too late

By Jeff Pope

Friday, June 12, 2009 | 12:01 p.m.

A Clark County District Court judge ruled today that county commissioners erred when they considered a protest letter in denying the lowest bidder for the construction of the northern 215 Beltway.

Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez said the letter filed with the county by Las Vegas Paving, which eventually won the contract, on Feb. 13 was beyond the statutory five-day window to protest and, therefore, “there is no protest to consider.”

Gonzalez issued a writ of mandamus requiring the commission to reexamine the bids for the widening of the beltway from Tenaya Way to Decatur Boulevard.

She granted a stay of her order, however, while Las Vegas Paving appeals to the state Supreme Court. Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. filed the suit on April 22, one day after commissioners awarded a $116.8 million construction contract to Las Vegas Paving.

Fisher had submitted a lower bid of $112.2 million, which Las Vegas Paving challenged at first on Feb. 2, which was within the five-day protest period.

That first letter argued that Fisher failed to list subcontractors in its bid. The county requested the information from Fisher, which responded by Feb. 10.

Las Vegas Paving filed a second protest letter claiming two of Fisher’s subcontractors lacked the proper state license to conduct highway construction.

Gonzalez said the second letter was a separate argument that was filed too late.

Wade Gochnour, attorney for Las Vegas Paving, said the second letter was an extension of the first.

He also argued that the commission has discretion to consider protests after the five-day rule in the interest of the public good, because the state statute does not specify what happens if they are filed after that period.

“The county can look at this and say the five days is a safe harbor rule,” Gochnour said.

Gonzalez did not address the argument Las Vegas Paving made in its second letter regarding the licenses required by the subcontractors.

Commissioners awarded the contract to Las Vegas Paving at its April 21 meeting. During that meeting, Deputy District Attorney Mary Miller confirmed Fisher’s bid met the standard criteria and should be accepted.

The board voted 6-1 to award the contract to Las Vegas Paving with Commissioner Larry Brown dissenting.

During today’s court hearing, Fisher’s attorney, Stanley Parry, said the state law does not give county commissions the discretion to ignore the five-day rule.

“Why they didn’t listen to their staff, why they didn’t listen to their district attorney is beyond me,” he said. “The rejection was inappropriate.”

The county’s attorney, Tom Dillard, said the county doesn’t have a rooted interest in which company receives the contract but does want to expedite the court proceedings to get the work started.

“There’s no evidence to suggest at all there was a sinister motive at play here,” he said.