11-2-9494 Vincent Pools Inc. v. APS Contractors Inc., App. Div. (per curiam) (27 pp.) Vincent Pools, a subcontractor, filed suit to collect the balance due for work performed on a municipal pool project in Jersey City. Defendant APS Contractors Inc. was the general construction contractor that had retained Vincent Pools. Defendant Colonial Surety Company Inc. was APS’ surety. The jury awarded Vincent $150,498.92 payable by APS and Colonial. It awarded APS $502,966 on its cross-claim against Jersey City for the balance on the municipal contract and for additional change order work. The trial judge reduced APS’ judgment to $352,467, the amount Jersey City had previously paid to APS for the portion of the contract due to Vincent Pools. Pursuant to the offer-of-judgment rule, Rule 4:58-2, the trial judge entered judgment for Vincent Pools of $122,329.93 in attorney fees and costs. APS and Colonial appealed the award of attorney fees and costs; Jersey City appealed both the jury’s verdict and the judge’s award of fees. The appellate panel affirmed. It rejected Jersey City’s argument that because it had paid APS the funds appropriated for the construction of the municipal pool complex, it should not be required to pay anything to Vincent Pools under the Municipal Mechanics’ Lien Law, and that if compelled to do so, it would pay the same bill twice, finding that Vincent Pools was a proper claimant under the Mechanics’ Lien Law; the city was not required to pay twice since the judge reduced the award to reflect its payment to APS; and the fact that other potential remedies, such as the Trust Fund Act, were available did not negate Jersey City’s exposure under the Mechanics’ Lien Law. The panel also rejected the contention of APS, Colonial and the city that the offer-of-judgment rule was not applicable and that the award of attorney fees and costs was therefore erroneous.
11-3-9516 Paul Otto Bldg. Co. v. Kearny Bd. of Educ., Law Div.-Hudson Cy. (9 pp.) This motion sought transfer of an application for an order to show cause arising out of a public school bid protest to the commissioner of education. The dispute concerned a bid protest arising out of a project with the Kearny Board of Education. There were six bidders, with defendant Bennett Co. and plaintiff Paul Otto Building Co. (“POBC”) placing the two lowest bids. POBC submitted a protest letter, urging that Bennett’s bid be rejected and the project awarded to POBC. POBC’s chief complaint was Bennett’s failure to illustrate compliance with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) requirements of the bid solicitation. Bennett did not demonstrate that this matter involved an issue requiring the expertise of the commissioner of education. Bennett attempted to argue that the federal funding and budgetary concerns inherent in this construction project, coupled with the time constraints surrounding the project’s anticipated completion by fall 2017, required the knowledge and expertise of the commissioner. However, these issues appeared to be more peripheral, rather than directly related to the underlying bid dispute. While the federal funding aspect did give rise to the DBE requirement at the core of plaintiff’s application, whether or not this requirement was satisfied was not a decision requiring the commissioner’s expertise or specialized knowledge. Although this matter arose out of public school laws, the legislature did not expressly indicate that the commissioner of education or another administrative agency had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The motion to transfer was denied.
