Charlie's Waste Services, Inc. v. Kent County Levy Court
CA 2017-0283-JRS
| Del. Ch. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Kent County issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for FY2018–FY2020 trash collection (Contract T-18) and stated two contracts would be awarded. Charlie’s submitted the lowest bid.
- The County had a poor experience with its prior low-bid contractor and included evaluative, experience- and capacity-focused criteria in the ITB (equipment, staffing, references, insurance, customer service, pricing).
- Charlie’s initial bid omitted required documents (insurance details, financial info, letters of recommendation, bid bond); the County allowed corrections rather than outright rejection.
- County appointed three evaluators who scored bidders; evaluators unanimously recommended Waste Industries and Republic as best qualified; the Levy Court voted to award contracts to those two firms.
- Charlie’s sued seeking to enjoin award, arguing Section 4725 required award to the lowest responsible bidder (Charlie’s). The Court treated the record as a stipulated trial record and held an expedited final review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing law: which procurement statute applies | Section 4725 governs; County must award to lowest responsible bidder | County’s process governed by Section 4725 for Kent County waste contracts | Court held Section 4725 governs and applies (court had already ruled this) |
| Definition/application of “lowest responsible bidder” | Charlie’s: it was lowest and therefore entitled to award unless formally declared not responsible | County: it may evaluate responsibility using ITB criteria and decline to award if bidder not qualified | Court: “lowest responsible bidder” means lowest bidder unless found not responsible; County may use evaluative criteria to determine responsibility |
| Whether Charlie’s was a "responsible" (qualified) bidder | Charlie’s: it submitted lowest bid and was scored; County did not formally declare it not responsible, so award should go to Charlie’s | County: Charlie’s lacked required experience, had older fleet, insufficient staffing/maintenance, and omitted key bid materials — thus not qualified | Court: Charlie’s was not qualified; evaluators legitimately concluded Charlie’s not responsible based on record; County complied with statute |
| Procedural/formal requirements: must county make explicit written declaration of non-responsibility? | Charlie’s: County needed formal declaration/findings before denying award | County: no formal declaration required if record supports non-award and decision is not arbitrary | Court: no formal label required; adequate contemporaneous record and non-arbitrary process suffice; denied permanent injunction to Charlie’s |
Key Cases Cited
- Julian v. Delaware Dep’t of Transp., 53 A.3d 1081 (Del. 2012) (agencies have broad discretion in procurement and bid determinations)
- New Castle Cnty. Council v. BC Dev. Assoc., 567 A.2d 1271 (Del. 1989) (agency need not draft detailed findings; must create record enabling judicial review)