Marco St. Croix, Inc. v. Virgin Islands Housing Authority, 2015 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 8

Background

HUD awarded a $4,279,414 emergency demolition grant to the Virgin Islands Housing Authority (VIHA) for the Ralph deChabert Place project; VIHA issued an IFB to demolish multiple structures.
Marco St. Croix, Inc. submitted the lowest bid but did not hold a Virgin Islands general construction contractor license at bid submission; RG Engineering submitted the next-lowest bid and received the award.
Marco filed a bid protest with VIHA, then sued in Superior Court and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the demolition contract award.
The Superior Court denied injunctive relief, finding Marco’s bid non-responsive because it lacked required licenses, was thinly capitalized, lacked comparable experience, and submitted incomplete references.
The Superior Court weighed irreparable harm to Marco against the public interest and HUD funding deadlines and found the public interest and harm to VIHA outweighed Marco’s injury.
This Court affirmed, concluding Marco could not lawfully perform the contract without the required license, and that delaying the project risked recapture of federal funds and public safety concerns.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marco is likely to succeed on the merits (responsiveness of bid)	Marco argued its bid should have been considered responsive and that VIHA’s rejection was improper.	VIHA argued Marco’s bid was non‑responsive because Marco lacked the mandatory general construction contractor/demolition license and other qualifications at the time of bidding.	Held: Marco is unlikely to succeed because it admitted it lacked the required license at bid submission, disqualifying its bid as non‑responsive.
Whether Marco would suffer irreparable harm and if it outweighs public harm	Marco claimed irreparable harm from lost opportunity and damage to procurement process confidence.	VIHA argued injunction would jeopardize HUD deadlines, risk grant recapture, and delay an emergency demolition necessary for public safety.	Held: Court accepted irreparable-harm finding but concluded public and VIHA harms (including HUD funding deadlines and safety) outweigh Marco’s harm.
Whether VIHA violated its internal bid-protest procedures	Marco contended VIHA ignored or improperly handled its bid protest.	VIHA showed the protest was filed Dec. 18 and Marco sued three business days later, leaving insufficient time for internal resolution; an earlier notice letter was not a denial.	Held: No reversible procedural error; Marco sued prematurely and cannot blame VIHA for lack of internal resolution.
Whether an injunction pending appeal was appropriate or moot	Marco sought to enjoin VIHA from contracting with RG Engineering.	VIHA represented it had already executed the contract before the appeal injunction could issue.	Held: Injunction pending appeal was denied as moot because the contract had already been signed; merits of injunction were also denied on merits.

Key Cases Cited

Tip Top Constr. Corp. v. Gov’t of the V.I., 60 V.I. 724 (V.I. 2014) (discussing limited judicial review of procurement factual justifications and distinction between fact and law).
Yusuf v. Hamed, 59 V.I. 841 (V.I. 2013) (sets four-factor preliminary injunction standard).
Petrus v. Queen Charlotte Hotel Corp., 56 V.I. 548 (V.I. 2012) (standards of review for interlocutory injunction appeals).
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy).
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for injunctive relief).
Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Coop., Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2009) (irreparable injury alone insufficient; need plausible merits).