A legal dispute has emerged between D&D Paving Inc. and Jefferson County Judge Gerald Robinson over purported violations of Arkansas procurement laws and the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.
The lawsuit, filed in the Jefferson County Circuit Court on Sept. 11 by Bequette, Billingsley & Kees P.A., accuses Robinson of failing to provide adequate bid specifications and public records for a road improvement project on Donham and Toler roads.
According to the lawsuit, D&D Paving, owned by Mike Davis and Carrie Lynn Davis, discovered an online bid announcement on July 28, 2025, for the Donham and Toler Road Project. The announcement, issued by the Jefferson County Road Department, invited contractors to submit sealed bids by Aug. 20. However, the announcement lacked critical details about the scope of work, specifications and requirements for the project.
The lawsuit states that Mike Davis, eager to bid on the project, made multiple attempts to obtain the necessary information. He sent emails to Robinson on Aug. 14 and 18, followed by a personal visit to the Jefferson County Road Department on Aug. 11. Despite these efforts, Davis was repeatedly informed that no bid package or additional information was available. Without the required details, D&D Paving was unable to submit a bid.
The lawsuit claims that Robinson violated Arkansas Code § 22-9-203, which mandates that counties provide plans and specifications for public improvement projects exceeding $50,000. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that Robinson failed to comply with Freedom of Information Act requirements by not providing the requested public records related to the bidding process.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
The key accusations include:
• Failure to provide detailed project specifications, such as road dimensions, subbase preparation, asphalt thickness and material sourcing.
• Denial of public records requests, including proof of publication for the bid announcement and prior bid awards to the winning contractor, Cato’s Trucking, Asphalt & Pavement Inc.
• Noncompliance with Freedom of Information Act deadlines for responding to public records requests.
The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief to nullify the bidding process for the Donham and Toler Road Project. They request the court to order Robinson to republish a bid announcement that complies with Arkansas law and reopen the bidding process. Additionally, they demand the release of all requested public records and reimbursement for attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
According to the lawsuit, in response to the Freedom of Information Act requests, Robinson stated that his office manager would provide the requested records.
However, plaintiffs argue that the information provided was insufficient and did not address all their requests.
For example, the legal notice published in the Pine Bluff Commercial described the project as “dig out bad spots and asphalt” but lacked the detailed specifications required by law.
According to the lawsuit, Arkansas law requires counties to provide clear and detailed information to ensure fair competition among bidders.
The plaintiffs argue that the lack of transparency in this case undermines the integrity of the bidding process and disadvantages local businesses.
D&D Paving and the Davises also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Robinson that same day.
The motion, submitted to the Circuit Court, claims violations of Arkansas procurement laws and the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act in connection with the bidding process for a county road project.
The plaintiffs claim that the bidding process for the Jefferson County Road Project, which involves work on Donham and Toler roads, was conducted unlawfully.
Specifically, they claim that the county failed to provide required plans and specifications to potential bidders, as mandated by Arkansas Code Annotated § 22-9-203.
Additionally, the plaintiffs assert that public records related to the project were not produced on time, violating Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-19-105.
The motion cites Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which governs the issuance of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. According to the plaintiffs, immediate and irreparable harm will result if the court does not intervene to halt the project. They argue that the unlawful bidding process deprived them of the opportunity to compete fairly for the contract, and once construction begins, they will have no legal recourse to recover the lost opportunity.
The plaintiffs also contend that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case, pointing to clear statutory violations in the bidding process and Freedom of Information Act compliance. They reference prior court rulings that affirm a bidder’s standing to challenge unlawful procurement procedures, including Walt Bennett Ford Inc. v. Pulaski County Special School District and Conway Corp. v. Construction Engineers Inc.
The motion emphasizes that the balance of equities favors the plaintiffs. Enjoining the defendant from proceeding with the project under a reportedly unlawful bidding process would preserve the integrity of Arkansas procurement laws and prevent further harm.
The plaintiffs argue that Robinson would suffer no prejudice from complying with statutory requirements.
They argue that allowing the project to proceed under an illegal process undermines public confidence in government contracting and wastes taxpayer resources.
The plaintiffs are seeking several forms of relief, including:
• A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Robinson from proceeding with the road project, including executing contracts or issuing payments.
• A requirement for Robinson to republish the bid for the project with proper plans and specifications to allow informed bidding.
• A mandate for Robinson to provide the requested public records.
• A hearing at the court’s earliest convenience to consider a permanent injunction.
• A hearing within seven days pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-19-107(b).
• Reimbursement of plaintiffs costs and attorneys fees.
The motion requests an expedited hearing to address the matter, citing the urgency of preventing irreparable harm. The plaintiffs argue that immediate court intervention is necessary to ensure compliance with Arkansas laws governing public procurement and transparency.
Five circuit judges — Judges Robert Wyatt, Jodi Dennis, Mac Norton, Jackie Harris and Earnest Brown — have recused themselves as of Tuesday. Robinson acknowledged his awareness of the lawsuit, stating that his attorneys are currently reviewing it.