Suit challenges GDOT award of contracts

Agency denies wrongdoing in paying for striping.

A pavement striping company has accused the Georgia Department of Transportation of improperly awarding contracts worth a combined $28 million.

In a lawsuit filed last month in Fulton County Superior Court, Peek Pavement Marking says two rival bidders that won pavement striping contracts did not meet minimum requirements to receive the work. It says GDOT awarded them the contracts anyway, violating its own rules and state procurement laws.

In court records, GDOT denies any wrongdoing and says the lawsuit is based on a misreading of its recent solicitation for pavement striping.

Last spring GDOT advertised for companies to handle highway pavement striping in seven districts across the Peach State. In August it awarded contracts for three of the districts to Pro-Line Pavement Markings. The company’s contract would be worth nearly $16.3 million over five years.

The agency awarded a contract worth nearly $11.8 million to Southern States Pavement Markings, which would stripe highways in three other districts. Peek Pavement won a contract for one district worth about $5.7 million over five years.

Peek Pavement filed a lawsuit, which says the other two companies did not meet the minimum standards spelled out in GDOT’s solicitation.

Among other things, the lawsuit says neither company demonstrated they had enough equipment or qualified personnel necessary to do the work, as required. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the contract awards.

In court documents, GDOT says Peek Pavement misread the solicitation requirements. It says it does not expect companies to have all of the equipment and personnel they need in advance – only after the contract is awarded. The department also issued a statement to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“The department adamantly denies Peek Pavement’s claims that the procurement for seven district striping contracts was improper, and in fact notes that Peek Pavement was awarded and signed one of the contracts that it alleges was improperly procured,” the statement said.

Peek Pavement’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.