The District received a formal protest letter from a bidder who was not selected. The protest claimed that the apparent low bidder’s bid was not responsive because (1) it did not specify whether the apparent low bidder held a particular specialized contractor’s license and (2) it did not name a subcontractor who could perform certain specialized work involving at least 0.5% of the value of the project.

The District sought and received a response from the apparent low bidder. After reviewing the protest and the response, staff recommends that the Board reject the protest for lack of merit. With regard to (1), the response letter indicated, and state records confirm, that the apparent low bidder holds a Class “A” contractor’s license which allows the contractor to perform the specialized work at issue. With regard to (2), the response letter indicated that the contractor planned to self-perform the specialized work, meaning that there was no subcontractor to name. Staff recommends that the Board award the contract to the apparent low bidder.