Second Boulder County debris removal lawsuit dismissed

Jun. 1—A district court judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Ceres Environmental Services, one of the companies that wasn't selected for Boulder County's post-Marshall Fire debris removal program.

"Naturally we are pleased by this ruling," Boulder County Public Works Director Jeff Maxwell stated in a news release. "We hope the court's decision brings an end to the misguided efforts to stop the progress of the private property debris removal program, allowing our staff to remain squarely focused on accomplishing the challenging and important work of Marshall Fire cleanup."

The Florida contractor, which did not respond to a request for comment, in early April sued the county and the Boulder County commissioners, alleging the bidding process that had been conducted a couple months earlier was shrouded in secrecy and misrepresentations. The company asked the court to invalidate the bid.

Boulder County then asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed.

In order to withstand the county's motion to dismiss, however, "(Ceres) must have suffered an injury in fact and have a legally protected interest," the May 26 order states.

An injury in fact indicates a real or threatened injury, including an infringement on a protected interest. To that end, Ceres argued it suffered such an injury given that its ranking was the "product of a corrupt, unlawful or unfair process."

According to information previously provided by Boulder County, Ceres ranked third out of 11 companies competing for the contract.

The company was not one of the two selected to be interviewed by the selection committee because of the scoring gap between the Ceres proposal and the two firms selected for an interview. Out of a total possible score of 100, Ceres received a score of 68, while the other two firms received scores of 84 and 91.

While Ceres argued it should have been ranked higher, Judge Kenneth Plotz disagreed with that assertion.

"Ceres' alleged injuries are speculative, and it cannot reasonably be concluded that Ceres would have obtained the award," Plotz determined.

Before taking legal action, Ceres appealed the bid decision to the county commissioners, but the appeal was denied.

Boulder County's Private Property Debris Removal program has been underway since mid-April. It continued while the lawsuit proceeded.

According to the county, the selected contractor DRC Emergency Services is currently working on more than 300 properties in Louisville, Superior and unincorporated Boulder County with more than 65 approaching completion.

The commissioners on March 22 officially approved the $60 million contract with DRC and OK'd the intergovernmental agreement that requires Superior and Louisville to reimburse Boulder County for the costs of private property debris removal not covered by the state or by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA is reimbursing 90% of the eligible project costs with the state and local jurisdictions paying 5% each.

This is not the first time Boulder County's debris removal program has overcome legal hurdles.

Another lawsuit questioning the debris removal contract was brought earlier this year by former FEMA director Michael Brown and his group, Demanding Integrity in Government Spending. That lawsuit accused the county of violating open meetings laws during the bidding process.

Visiting Judge Stephen Howard determined that Brown — who does not live in Boulder County and could not prove injury related to the award of the contract to DRC — had no standing to sue and dismissed the case in late March.

A nonprofit organization, made largely of residents who survived what's now the state's most destructive wildfire, opposed both lawsuits by filing official motions to intervene.

The group argued that both would delay cleanup and that any delay would further emotional and financial hardship for people whose homes were lost or damaged in the Marshall Fire.

"Even without any delay caused by this lawsuit, many fire survivors will struggle to complete a rebuild of their homes within the 12 or 24 months of additional living expense coverage that they have," the group's more recent motion states. "But with a delay, many fire survivors would not be able to pay both rent, now greatly inflated after the disaster, and their mortgage if they run out of additional living expense coverage."