The state Department of General Services didn’t give an adequate explanation of why it decided to use a competitive sealed proposal process for construction work at Cheyney University as opposed to the default competitive sealed bid process, an en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court ruled.
The panel was hearing the case, PA Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. v. Department of General Services, on remand from the Supreme Court after that court decided construction contracts were meant to be included under Section 513 of the Procurement Code dealing with competitive sealed proposals. A different panel of the Commonwealth Court had previously ruled the General Assembly did not intend for large-scale construction projects to be included in that section, but rather contracts for goods purchased.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
