Public Agency Law | Mcguinnesslaw

This firm won a $30 million bid protest trial against the City of Los Angeles ("City") and the County of Los Angeles ("County"). Our client estimated the cumulative business value of the action to exceed $50 million. The Trial Court issued a Writ of Mandate and Judgment directing the City and the County to cancel and vacate a contract which emanated from the contested bid. The Trial Court also awarded our client a full recovery of its litigation costs.

By promptly conducting an effective discovery plan, this firm obtained an interim injunction against the City and County avoiding efforts by these entities to expedite the completion of illegal transactions. Such efforts included advanced payments for undelivered product and an acceleration of product delivery. Based on evidence this firm developed and presented at hearing, the Trial Court found that it had been misled by prior County representations and that our client had established the basis for extraordinary relief. The Trial Court, therefore, granted our client's application for the interim injunction.

This firm then uncovered evidence of pricing formulas, which the Trial Court found to be illegal, and performance evaluation practices, which the Trial Court found to be both "unfair" and a "misuse" of the established evaluation methodology. The Trial Court granted our client's request for a Writ of Mandate, independently, on each of these grounds.

Our firm successfully persuaded a public entity to reject all bids by demonstrating that the public entity created faulty specifications. The specifications improperly called for qualifications which were contrary to provisions of the Contractors State Licensing Law. These specifications had excluded our client from consideration notwithstanding that our client was entirely qualified to participate in the bid process.

This firm protested a bid on a major construction project for an international airport on the grounds that the winning bidder, a competitor entity, had misappropriated our client’s confidential information. The competitor entity had hired one of our client’s former employees who possessed the confidential information. This employee initially performed work on our client’s bid preparation team with access to its project analysis and bid plan. That employee was then assigned to formulate the competitor entity’s own bid plan and the competitor won the bid. Based on our protest, the public entity required a new round of bidding, in which this firm’s client prevailed.

Successfully enjoined a municipality and contractors engaged by it from commencing a major construction project. A court issued an injunction order based on evidence that the municipality had failed to comply with the competitive bidding “or equals” statute.

After an employee accident, OSHA reached preliminary findings against our client for three “serious violations” of OSHA standards, which the client would be required to disclose on any public work bids, and for many private projects bids. In response to the initial notice of potential violations from OSHA, the client’s personnel provided OSHA with fabricated records. Our firm lawyers negotiated with OSHA to accept correct records with impunity, and then worked with OSHA to understand unique facts about how the accident was caused. Based on our industry research and a forthcoming approach with OSHA, the preliminary findings were vacated and OSHA found that no serious violations had occurred.

A major national contractor changed its corporate format, requiring it to obtain a new license from the California State Contractor’s License Board (the “Board”). The Board originally rejected the new corporate format, and the client could not make the requested changes before its license would lapse. This firm worked with counsel for the Board to obtain a thirty day extension of the client’s license to allow for the required changes to occur. Our client was able to remain operating with no disruption while all compliance issues with the Board were fully resolved.

The firm’s client, a national alarm company, split into two entities, business and consumer. The consumer entity became a separate, newly formed company. Because of timing issues with the California State Contractors Licensing Board, the consumer entity would have been operating as an unlicensed entity until state mandated background checks were completed. This firm worked with state agencies to gain approval pending background checks, and to obtain a valid license the day before the new company began operations.

This firm advised a security contractor commencing business in California to identify the licenses necessary to comply with all aspects of its planned work and service, with both the California State Contractors License Board and the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (the “BSIS”). This firm provided advice on necessary sub-specialty licenses. In addition, this firm modified the client’s standard contract to include language mandated by the Board, BSIS and pertinent statutes.

M&A is outside counsel for the City of Torrance on all construction matters. In addition, M&A represented the City in claims asserted after a fire damaged personal property stored at its airport. M&A has also defended the City on defect claims, claims for additional payment on construction projects, and Labor Board actions involving contractors and subcontractors. Our firm has also negotiated project completion agreements for the City, with sureties, after contractors failed to perform contract work.

Our firm represented a global communications company when a public agency disclosed proprietary information to a competitor allowing the competitor a bidding advantage. Ultimately, the awarded contract was withdrawn, and our client was awarded the contract during a subsequent contract bidding process.