Alpha Painting v. DRPA — civil — partial affirmance — Rendell
A blistering Third Circuit opinion today upheld a district court ruling that the Delaware River Port Authority improperly denied a bridge-painting contract to the low bidder. The opinion described DRPA’s underlying conduct as “so puzzling,” done “for reasons that still elude us,” alarm[ing],” and “defy[ing] reasonable explanation.” Its appellate efforts fared no better:
- “DRPA argues that it has a rational basis for labeling Alpha not responsible. We cannot see how.”
- “Most of DRPA’s arguments on appeal, in an effort to distract us from this glaring deficiency in proof . . . .”
- “This argument, however, borders on the frivolous.”
Probably not what DRPA was hoping for when they decided to appeal. The one silver lining for DRPA was that the Third Circuit vacated the lower court’s remedy of awarding the contract to the contractor plaintiff.