Solid Waste Svcs., Inc. d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons v. City of Allentown and Waste Mgmt. of PA, Inc., Solid Waste Svcs., Inc. d/b/a J.P. Mascaro & Sons v. City of Allentown and Waste Mgmt. of PA, Inc.

Background

Allentown issued RFP #2015-24 for municipal solid waste and recycling services to replace an expiring 2006 contract; Mascaro and Waste Management (WMI) both submitted proposals.
The City adopted Addendum No. 3 to the RFP clarifying the City could request more information, waive minor irregularities, reject all proposals, and award to the most advantageous proposer (price and other factors); price forms in Appendix VI were firm and final.
WMI was shortlisted, recommended, and awarded the contract contingent on council approval; City Council approved and the contract was executed in February 2016.
Mascaro sued seeking a permanent injunction to void the contract, arguing the Allentown Home Rule Charter §815 required sealed competitive bidding (ITB) rather than an RFP; trial court denied injunctive relief and the denial was appealed.
The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether the City was required to use the ITB process under the Administrative Code and Charter, whether issues were waived, and whether plaintiffs met the three-element standard for a permanent injunction.
Court held the waste contract was a service contract not subject to the Administrative Code bid provisions for construction or purchases over $40,000, that competitive RFP use was permissible under the Charter/Administrative Code, and affirmed denial of the injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Allentown was required to use a sealed invitation to bid (ITB) rather than an RFP to award the waste services contract	§815 and the Charter (and 1997 amendments) require solicitation by competitive sealed bids for services over specified thresholds	Home rule charter and Administrative Code permit competitive processes; RFP is a competitive method and the Third Class City Code does not govern Allentown	Held: ITB not required. The contract was a services contract not within Administrative Code bid categories that mandate public bidding, so RFP was permissible.
Whether the RFP process was non-competitive or prone to favoritism (competitiveness under §815)	RFP is not sufficiently competitive and allows favoritism/corruption; title “Bidding Process” shows intent for sealed bids	RFP fosters competition; appellants failed to show favoritism or corruption; Title cannot override statutory text	Held: Issue waived below; court did not reach merits.
Whether plaintiffs waived arguments or are barred by laches/unclean hands for delay and participation in the RFP	Objections were timely as to lawfulness of process	City/WMI: Mascaro knew of RFP, participated, and delayed judicial challenge until after losing, invoking laches/unclean hands	Held: Court found waiver of some arguments (e.g., 1997 amendment and competitiveness) for failure to raise below; laches/unclean hands arguments supported appellees’ equitable defenses.
Whether plaintiffs satisfied the three-factor permanent injunction standard (clear right, irreparable injury, balance of harms)	Argued they had clear right under Charter and would suffer unrecoverable injury if contract stands	City/WMI: Plaintiffs cannot show clear right because Charter permits competitive RFP; no urgent irreparable harm; injunction would cause significant public and private harm	Held: Plaintiffs failed to meet the three-element test; injunction was properly denied.

Key Cases Cited

Richard Allen Preparatory Charter School v. School District of Philadelphia, 123 A.3d 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (elements required for permanent injunction)
Bell v. Lehigh County Board of Elections, 729 A.2d 125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (home rule charter supersedes class code provisions)
Ziegler v. City of Reading, 142 A.3d 119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (absence of conflict means prior code provisions no longer apply to home rule municipality)
Wecht v. Roddey, 815 A.2d 1146 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (adoption of home rule charter removes municipality from former code provisions)
Glencannon Homes Assn. v. North Strabane Township, 116 A.3d 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)
Phoenixville Hospital v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Shoap), 81 A.3d 830 (Pa. 2013) (intent is evidenced by enacted law, not prior rejected versions)
Buffalo Township v. Jones, 813 A.2d 659 (Pa. 2002) (scope of appellate review for injunction rulings)