Scott Livingston and his team have substantial experience in court cases related to public contracts in the state of Maryland. When necessary, Scott and his team support government contractors in litigation with prime contractors, subcontractors and other non-governmental entities when claims and disputes arise before, during, or after performance of a particular government contract.


  • State Center LLC v. Lexington Charles Limited Partnership, 438 Md. 451 (2014)
    RWL clientele opposed the $400M+ redevelopment project at State Center, on grounds that it violated Maryland Procurement Law.  The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled protest was untimely but, eventually, the project was scuttled in a manner favorable to RWL clientele.

    • State Agency:  MD Department of General Services

    • Industry: Real estate development

    • Money in Dispute: $1,200,000,000

  • Laurel Racing Association v. Video Lottery (slots) Location Commission (2009)
    RWL client challenged legality of Commission selection of slots venue, based on selection process guided by procurement law. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled circuit court erroneously should not have granted relief on the merits because all administrative remedies had not been exhausted.

    • State Agency:  State Video Lottery (slots venue) Location Commission, State Lottery Agency

    • Industry: Gaming and Entertainment

    • Money in Dispute: $1,000,000,000

  • Richard F. Kline v. Maryland Dept. of Transportation (2008) 
    RWL client, low bidder for a  highway contractor, protested rejection of bid for failure to reach MBE percentage participation goal. Protestor alleged MDOT Minority Business Enterprises Program was unconstitutional on its face and as applied. The case settled after considerable discovery concerning the disparity study, statistics on MBE participation, and good faith efforts.  As part of the settlement, the State revised certain practices in MBE Program.

    • State Agency:  State Highway Administration, MDOT

    • Industry: Construction

    • Money in Dispute: $27,000,000

  • Genstar Stone Paving v. State Highway Administration, 94 Md. App. 594 (1993) 
    RWL client was awarded a contract which included SHA’s standard clause on variations (i.e. underruns below 75% and overruns above 125). RWL client claimed for adjustment due to underrun in actual quantity vs. SHA estimated quantity. The Court of Special Appeals ruled in favor of the RWL client, and eventually the dispute was settled.

    • State Agency:  State Highway Administration

    • Industry: Construction

    • Money in Dispute: $250,000

  • Concrete General v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. 779 F. Supp 370 (1991) 
    RWL client challenged constitutionality of agency’s decision to restrict competition to MBEs. RWL client, a non-MBE, challenged the restriction for award of this $20M/year highway maintenance project.  The US District Court concluded that the agency lacked statutory authority to restrict bidding to MBEs.

    • Agency:  Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

    • Industry: Construction/Utilities

    • Money in Dispute: $20,000,000

With the fast paced nature of bids, it’s important to act quickly.

Contact Scott Livingston to learn more about how to file a bid protest and how to defend against a bid protest.

(301) 951 - 0150

contact banner.jpg