Demolition Firm Appeals Town Bid Decision

By Andrew Gorosko

A firm upset that it was not awarded a contract for planned asbestos removal and demolition work at the town-owned Fairfield Hills campus has sued the town and others over its not getting the job and is seeking a court order to prevent another firm from performing the work.

In an appeal filed October 20 in Bridgeport Superior Court, Standard Demolition Services, Inc, of Trumbull sues the town, O&G Industries, Inc, of Torrington, and also Manafort Brothers, Inc, of Plainville.

O&G is the firm the town has hired as the construction manager on the demolition/asbestos removal project. Manafort is the company that won the bid to perform the work.

Through the court appeal, Standard Demolition seeks to have a judge prevent the town from entering a contract with Manafort to do the demolition work at Fairfield Hills.

The town has a November 3 court return date in the case.

According to the legal papers, on August 28, Standard Demolition obtained bidding documents for the project, which involved the demolition of both Litchfield House and Yale Laboratory at Fairfield Hills. On September 21, the firm submitted a bid in the amount of $591,197, according to the documents.

“Standard’s bid complied with all the requirements set forth in the invitation to bid, instruction to bidders, and bid documents,” the lawsuit states.

Manafort submitted a bid for the project in the amount of $659,000, the lawsuit adds.

When bids were publicly opened on September 21, it was learned that Standard had submitted the lowest bid for the project, with its base bid more than $67,800 lower than Manafort’s base bid for the same work, according to the legal papers.

According to the lawsuit, “A special interest group in the town that has been petitioning the federal government, the State of Connecticut, and the town to prevent a legal [solid waste] transfer facility operated by the Housatonic Railroad [from expanding] has pressured the first selectman to exclude Standard as a bidder on the [demolition] project, notwithstanding that Standard is not a party to any contract with the [railroad],” the legal papers state.

The “special interest group” mentioned is an apparent reference to the Hawleyville Environmental Advocacy Team (HEAT), an ad hoc citizens group that opposes that railroad’s proposal to expand its solid waste handling operations at its Hawleyville rail terminal. The railroad proposes significantly expanding the tonnage and also increasing the range of solid waste that it transfers from heavy trucks onto railcars for shipment by rail for disposal at out-of-state landfills.

In the legal papers, Stephen Goldblum, the president of Standard Demolition, vouches for the factual accuracy of the court appeal’s content. Mr Goldblum also is the manager for Newtown Transload, LLC, the firm that would be a contractor to the railroad for the expanded waste handling in Hawleyville.

Purchasing Authority

On October 16, Standard Demolition received a letter from the town’s Purchasing Authority informing it that the town had awarded the demolition bid to Manafort in the amount of $670,000, including Bid Alternate #1, according to the lawsuit.

 However, Standard Demolition takes issue with that bid award.

“The town did not have any legal grounds to reject Standard’s bid. Standard fully complied with the requirements of the bid documents and applicable laws,” the legal papers state.

The firm maintains that the town did not follow its process in evaluating bidders and determining which bidder is “the lowest responsible bidder.”

“The town’s decision to reject Standard’s bid and award the work on the project to Manafort was solely based on the self-serving political interests of the first selectman and the financial director,” Standard alleges in the lawsuit. Those two people comprise the town’s Purchasing Authority.

“The procedure for evaluating bidders implemented by the town amounts to a fraud on the competitive bidding laws. The town and its officials failed to observe good faith and accord all bidders just consideration in accordance with the purpose of competitive bidding. Fraud, corruption or favoritism has influenced the conduct of the bidding officials, and the very object and integrity of the competitive bidding process is defeated by the conduct of the town as alleged above. The actions of the town as alleged above constitute favoritism towards one bidder over another, corrupting the bidding process of the town and violating the town’s ordinances,” according to the lawsuit.

First Selectman Joe Borst and Financial Director Robert Tait both declined comment on the allegations made in the court appeal.

Town Attorney David Grogins said of the court appeal, “We will vigorously contest it…The town will vigorously defend itself against these allegations.”

“I prefer not to comment on pending litigation,” he added.

Mr Grogins said that a plaintiff in a court appeal who is challenging a bid award commonly makes the types of allegations against the defendants which Standard Demolition has made against the town’s Purchasing Authority in order to have the appeal considered by the court.