Unpublished Opinions for the Week of April 3, 2017

01-2-2884 In the Matter of Bid Protest of Agate Constr. Co., Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (15 pp.) Following Superstorm Sandy, the stone seawall in Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach suffered damage. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) spent more than a year developing specifications for the project and issued its initial solicitation for bids. After two addendums to the proposal, the DEP notified JFC that its bid was the lowest responsible bid and that it met the previous project experience and qualifications requirements. Agate filed a protest contending JFC’s bid was materially defective because it did not meet the specifications for previous experience. Agate asserted the defect was nonwaivable, that DEP improperly changed the procedure to evaluate bids, and DEP was required to award the contract to Agate. In issuing its conclusion, the court noted that it must give great deference to an agency’s interpretation and implementation of its rules enforcing the statutes for which it was responsible. Here, the court affirmed DEP’s decision holding it detailed the factors considered in accepting the bid, as well as an explanation for how it weighed those factors. Further, the record reflected that DEP relied not only upon information supplied, but “field-verified” the information’s compliance with the bid specifications. Finally, the court held that a plenary quasi-judicial hearing was not required where there was a fair opportunity for the protesting bidder to present the facts and law supporting the protest. Accordingly, the decision of the DEP was affirmed.

07-2-2885 Wurzburg v. Wurzburg, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Defendants appealed the order denying their motion for reconsideration of an order that denied their motion to vacate a default judgment entered against them. Plaintiff and defendants had owned property in Delaware that was condemned. Each party was to receive $168,500 after the mortgage was satisfied. Plaintiff sued alleging that defendants failed to disburse his share and retained the money that belonged to him. Defendants did not file an answer to the complaint and default was entered against them. Seven months after the entry of the default judgment, defendants moved to vacate, contending that plaintiff had received his share and the allegations in the complaint lacked merit. The trial court denied the motion because defendants failed to show excusable neglect and a meritorious defense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion because defendants never addressed the issue of excusable neglect and trial court was well within its discretion to deny the motion for reconsideration when defendants presented the same argument they had presented in their prior motion.