Sidelines Tree Service, LLC v. DOT

Citation: Not availableDocket: 716 C.D. 2021

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; December 14, 2022; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Sidelines Tree Service, LLC (Sidelines) filed a petition for review concerning the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) final determination denying its protest against the rejection of its bid for tree-trimming services. Sidelines had submitted the lowest bid in response to the Clinton County RFQ but was deemed not a responsible bidder based on prior performance issues, including failure to maintain required certifications, insurance coverage, and timely provision of services. The Secretary of Transportation upheld this determination, which Sidelines appealed, but the court affirmed the Secretary's decision, citing substantial evidence of Sidelines' poor performance history. The court also noted that Sidelines had not demonstrated a need for an evidentiary hearing, as there were no material facts in dispute. PennDOT moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming it was moot or barred by collateral estoppel from a prior decision, but this motion was denied, and the Secretary's determination was affirmed.

Sidelines failed to provide adequate documentation of required OSHA training for work near energized electrical lines, as stipulated in the Clinton County RFQ Statement of Work (SOW), which designated the responsibility for proper training and personnel to the Contractor. PennDOT's determination of Sidelines’ non-responsibility was influenced by communications with TCIA, the certifying body for trained personnel, raising doubts about the authenticity of Sidelines' submitted TCIA certifications. Concerns were also expressed regarding Sidelines' previous admissions of employing untrained workers. On April 16, 2021, Sidelines filed a bid protest, claiming that PennDOT's reliance on alleged certification failures was incorrect and asserting that it had emailed the necessary certifications to PennDOT. Sidelines contested that PennDOT's assessment improperly considered its prior contract performance. In response, on April 30, 2021, PennDOT maintained that Sidelines did not meet the RFQ's safety and compliance requirements, citing invalid TCIA certifications and past admissions of working without proper certifications. PennDOT emphasized the importance of Sidelines’ reliability in assessing responsibility and reiterated that the work under the RFQ involved significant safety risks due to its proximity to power lines. William G. Gipe, a senior manager at PennDOT, confirmed that the determination of non-responsibility was based, in part, on Sidelines’ prior admissions and the need for proof of valid TCIA certifications post-RFQ opening.

Sidelines submitted TCIA certifications to PennDOT, which were deemed invalid by TCIA due to Sidelines' failure to provide necessary test results and documentation. Gipe testified to Sidelines' history of dropping required insurance coverage and failing to meet contractual obligations for timely personnel and services. On June 15, 2021, the Secretary denied Sidelines' protest, concluding it lacked merit under Section 1711.1 of the Procurement Code, as Sidelines did not prove any errors or arbitrary actions by PennDOT. The Secretary emphasized the importance of a vendor's historical performance in determining responsibility.

On appeal, Sidelines seeks to reverse the Secretary’s decision and remand for an evidentiary hearing, arguing that PennDOT's non-responsibility determination is unsupported by substantial evidence and that it abused its discretion by denying the hearing request. Sidelines contends that PennDOT's rationale relies on past issues from the Eight County RFQs, and the technical non-compliance from 2019 does not affect its ability for the current Clinton County RFQ. In opposition, PennDOT moves to dismiss the appeal as moot or barred by collateral estoppel, asserting no significant differences between the prior and current appeals. Sidelines counters that the issues are not identical, as the previous case involved eight contracts while the current one pertains to a single contract, thus raising distinct concerns about manpower and coverage.

Section 1711.1(i) of the Procurement Code establishes the standard for judicial review of bid protest appeals, affirming purchasing agency determinations unless they are deemed arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law. The Court rejects PennDOT's claims that Sidelines' appeal is moot or barred by collateral estoppel. A case is moot only if no actual controversy exists; here, no changes in fact or law have occurred, maintaining the Court's ability to resolve the issue. Regarding collateral estoppel, the Court identifies five criteria that must be met for it to apply, emphasizing that the issues in Sidelines I and the current appeal are nearly identical but involve distinct contracts for different counties. Thus, Sidelines retains the right to appeal the non-responsibility determination for each request for qualifications (RFQ).

On the merits, Sidelines contests the Secretary’s non-responsibility determination, arguing that PennDOT's reliance on its past contract performance was insufficient. Under the Procurement Code, a "responsible bidder" is defined by attributes beyond just the lowest bid, including capability, integrity, and reliability. The Court finds substantial evidence supporting the Secretary's determination, citing Sidelines' prior failures to maintain employee safety certifications and timely provision of services, which undermine its responsibility for current contract bids.

The record indicates ongoing issues with TCIA certifications related to both the Eight County RFQs and the Clinton County RFQ, with TCIA confirming the submitted certifications were invalid. Sidelines' claim that the Secretary relied solely on past contract information is unfounded. The Secretary correctly evaluated Sidelines’ contract history with PennDOT and its conduct concerning the Clinton County RFQ, leading to a determination of non-responsibility supported by substantial evidence. In addressing Sidelines' argument regarding the Secretary's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing, it is established that under Section 1711.1(e) of the Procurement Code, the Secretary has the discretion to decide on the necessity of a hearing. The Secretary's decision is only reversible in cases of bad faith, fraud, or abuse of power. Since Sidelines did not contest any material facts, a hearing was unnecessary. Sidelines' assertion that PennDOT has effectively debarred it without a proper process is dismissed, as the law allows the Secretary to consider factors beyond just the RFQ, including integrity and experience, which involve PennDOT’s history with Sidelines. Therefore, the Secretary did not abuse her discretion, and the June 15, 2021 final determination is affirmed. The Department of Transportation's Motion to Dismiss is denied.