DESIGN DWELLINGS, INC. d/b/a DDI, CONSTRUCTION Plaintiff,
TOWN OF WINDHAM Respondent. And R.J.GRONDIN & SONS, Party-in-Interest
Robert Ruesch, Esq.
Stephen Langsdorf Esq.
RJ Gronin-David Perkins, Esq.
ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
E. Walker Justice, Superior Court
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for
preliminary injunctive relief. For the reasons stated herein,
Plaintiffs motion is denied.
Town of Windham (hereafter the "Town"], published
an advertisement inviting bids on a construction project
which involved the realignment and construction of
approximately 800 feet of Angler's Road, new sidewalks,
associated storm water management facilities, 700 feet of
roadway widening and sidewalk improvements on Route 302, and
traffic signal and lane striping improvements on Route 302.
The Town also invited bids for work to be performed for the
Portland Water District, including the extension of a water
main and various other related construction projects.
Bidders interested in the projects received a so-called
Notice to Bidders dated February 1, 2016, as well as a bid
form and a volume of pages of information regarding the
project. The Notice to Bidders provided the process by which
bids would be submitted and evaluated. Relevantly to the
instant dispute, the Notice to Bidders explained that the
Town reserved the right to reject any and all bids should it
be deemed in the best interest of the Town to do so. Further
the Town expressly reserved the right to evaluate the
bidder's qualifications and capability to perform, among
other matrices used in evaluating the bidders.
Town instructed its consultant, William Haskell, P.E. to
review the bids and make recommendations for the award. Mr.
Haskell recommended to the Town Manager that the bid be
awarded to Grondin. Grondin was identified as the low bidder
on the Windham portion of the project while DDI presented the
lowest bid on the Portland Water District part of the
project. However, Mr. Haskell expressed several concerns
regarding the DDI bid, including in relevant part that its
bid was substantially lower than any of the other eight bids
and that the bid did not therefore properly account for the
complexity of the project. Haskell expressed concern that DDI
did not indicate that it had done any comparable projects in
scope and complexity; that its experience primarily involved
new subdivision roads; that DDI had not performed traffic
signal construction work; and that DDI had listed two
projects where work had not yet begun.
letter dated March 17, 2016, the Town Manager wrote a letter
to DDI explaining the reasons why DDI was not the successful
bidder which included the following: that Grondin was the low
bidder for the Town side of the project; that DDI did not
have the requisite qualification for the project because it
lacked sufficient relevant experience; that the Town had
unsatisfactory experience working with DDI; and DDI attempted
to change its bid after the bid opening through an email of
March 16, 2016. The Town followed up with substantially more
detailed analysis of the various and sundry reasons why it
concluded DDI was not qualified for the project based on its
own experience with DDI as well as information regarding
DDI's work performed on town projects in Windham and
the Plaintiffs burden to satisfy all four of the following
elements of injunctive relief:
1. That Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits;
2. That Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the