The rejection of a low bid due to concerns with the bidder’s capabilities, resources or past performance history frequently prompts a dispute. One question that arises is whether all bidders are held to the same standard.
A Mississippi appeals court recently reversed the rejection of a low bid. The procuring agency had reasonable concerns regarding the bidder’s performance history. But in going to the second-low bid, the agency neglected to conduct any investigation or evaluation of that bidder’s performance history.
The other case in this issue involved the admissibility of expert testimony on project delays. The expert analysis did not utilize the same methodology required by the contract for measuring work progress and delay. Would this be grounds for excluding the expert testimony?