PURE RECYCLING SOLUTIONS, LLC v. NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

PURE RECYCLING SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY,

Respondent.

_________________________________

November 24, 2015

Argued October 27, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Rothstadt and Currier.

On appeal from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.

Gregory W. Vella argued the cause for appellant (Collins, Vella & Casello, L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. Vella, on the brief).

John Francis Casey argued the cause for respondent (Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Casey, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Pure Recycling Solutions, LLC appeals from a final decision of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (the Authority) rejecting its bids for several highway snow removal contracts. We affirm.

Pure submitted bids on eight contracts to provide snow removal services along the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway. Although several of the bids were the lowest, and two of the bids had no rivals, they were all rejected by the Authority. In doing so, the Authority cited the poor condition of Pure's designated vehicles,1 the poor performance by Pure's owner on prior contracts with the Authority,2 its lack of experience in public-sector snow removal,3 and its failure to provide all requested information.

Pure filed a protest with the Authority, requesting a hearing to address the issues raised by the initial determination. After providing Pure the opportunity to submit additional information, the Authority considered the added materials and issued a final decision affirming the rejection of its bids.

On appeal, Pure contends that the Authority's failure to grant a hearing violated its due process and that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.

The scope of an appellate court's review of a final agency decision is limited. L.R. v. Div. of Disability Servs., 434 N.J. Super. 430, 439 (2014) (citing In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482 (2007)). An agency's decision will be overturned only upon a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that it lacked fair support in the evidence." In re Carter, supra, 191 N.J. at 482 (quoting Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963)). The court "must defer to the agency decision if the findings of fact are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record and are not so wide off the mark as to be manifestly mistaken." Tlumac v. High Bridge Stone, 187 N.J. 567, 573 (2006); see also DGR Co. v. State, Dep't of Treas., Div. of Prop. Mgmt. & Constr., 361 N.J. Super. 467, 474 (App. Div. 2003).

We find that the rejection of the bids was a proper exercise of the Authority's discretion, and we conclude that all of Pure's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The Authority's bid specifications made clear that it had broad discretion "to reject any bid . . . deemed not to be in its best interest," and listed several causes for potential rejection of a bid, including "past performance has been deemed unsatisfactory" and "if upon inspection the [Authority] finds the [b]idder's equipment to be unacceptable."

As to its due process argument, Pure was informed of the reasons for the Authority's rejection of its bids and given additional opportunities to provide information. "[A] plenary quasi-judicial hearing need not be afforded provided there is a fair opportunity, consistent with the desideratum of a fair and expeditious conclusion of the procurement process, for the protesting bidder to present the facts and law supporting the protest." Nachtigall v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 302 N.J. Super. 123, 143 (App. Div.) (citation omitted), certif. denied, 151 N.J. 77 (1997). A hearing is not required and was not warranted in these circumstances.

Affirmed.

1 Eight of twelve trucks were missing fenders, headlights, and had bald, mismatched or flat tires.

2 Robert Mautone, owner of Pure, had provided similar services to the Authority as owner of two other companies. Their performance had been noted as unsatisfactory on several occasions during those contracts.

3 The recycling company had only been in existence for nine months at the time of the bidding.