Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alpha Painting & Construction Company, Inc. v. Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 10, 2017

ALPHA PAINTING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant.

          PETER J. TORCICOLLO JENNIFER A. HRADIL KEVIN W. WEBER KAITLYN E. STONE GIBBONS, PC On behalf of Plaintiff

          STEWART JOHN GREENLEAF THOMAS J. ELLIOTT ELLIOTT GREENLEAF PC UNION MEETING CORPORATE CENTER V On behalf of Defendant

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         After a four-day bench trial, on September 23, 2016, this Court found that Defendant, Delaware River Port Authority, was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable when it awarded Corcon Inc., and not Plaintiff, Alpha Painting & Construction Company, Inc., the Phase 2 contract to paint the Commodore Barry Bridge. The Court held that DRPA's determination to award Corcon the contract was irrational because it arbitrarily deemed Alpha to be a non-responsible bidder by violating its own procurement rules to recraft Corcon's bid into the lowest responsive and responsible bid. On the day the bids were received and opened on June 16, 2016, Alpha was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for Contract CB-31-2016, and Corcon was not. The Court found that DRPA's arbitrary and capricious actions over the next two months flipped that result without any meaningful justification or rational process. (Docket No. 37 at 40.) As a result, the Court enjoined DRPA from proceeding on the contract with Corcon, and directed DRPA to award the contract to Alpha, which the Court found to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in accordance with DRPA's procurement rules. (Id. at 42-43.)

         DRPA appealed the Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On April 6, 2017, the Third Circuit issued its judgment affirming this Court's finding that DRPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its contract award process. Alpha Painting & Construction Co. Inc. v. Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, 853 F.3d 671, 674 (3d Cir. 2017). The Third Circuit reversed, however, this Court's order directing that DRPA award the contract to Alpha. Id. The Third Circuit vacated that part of the decision and remanded the case “for the entry of a more limited injunction” to enable Alpha to be “restored to competition.” Id.

         At this Court's direction, the parties submitted briefing and participated in oral argument on how the case should proceed consistent with the Third Circuit's mandate.[1] The Court has thoroughly considered the parties' positions, the Third Circuit's Opinion, and the law governing the scope of a district court's jurisdiction following the entry of a mandate by the appeals court. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that a rebid on a new contract for Phase 2 of the Commodore Barry Bridge painting project is consistent with the Third Circuit's mandate, and is the only fair and equitable result, for the parties and the public.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard for Determining Scope of Mandate on Remand

         The Third Circuit has set forth the standard that a district court must employ in determining the scope of a Third Circuit's remand manDated:

It is axiomatic that on remand for further proceedings after decision by an appellate court, the trial court must proceed in accordance with the mandate and the law of the case as established on appeal.
A trial court must implement both the letter and spirit of the mandate, taking into account the appellate court's opinion and the circumstances it embraces.
“Where the reviewing court in its mandate prescribes that the court shall proceed in accordance with the opinion of the reviewing court, such pronouncement operates to make the opinion a part of the mandate as completely as though the opinion had been set out at length.” In the absence of specific directions, the question as to what further proceedings can be had consistent with the opinion of the appellate court must be determined from the nature of the case and the pertinent statutory provisions. The mandate and the opinion must be considered together in their entirety with particular reference to the issues considered. From the proposition that a trial court must adhere to the decision and mandate of an appellate court there follows the long-settled corollary that upon remand, it may consider, as a matter of first impression, those issues not expressly or implicitly disposed of by the appellate decision. A trial court is thereby free to make any order or direction in further progress of the case, not inconsistent with the decision of the appellate court, as to any question not settled by the decision. . . .
“[U]upon a reversal and remand for further consistent proceedings, the case goes back to the trial court and there stands for a new determination of the issues presented as though they had not been determined before, pursuant to the principles of law enunciated in the appellate opinion, which must be taken as the law of the case.”

Bankers Trust Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 761 F.2d 943, 949-50 (3d Cir. 1985) (internal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.