An unsuccessful bidder on a municipal contract may lack standing to challenge the process, absent proof of corruption, fraud or favoritism. The plaintiff, The Good Earth Tree Care Inc., submitted the lowest bid on a project to operate a refuse facility for the Town of Fairfield. Municipal workers in the department of public works interviewed the top candidates about their qualifications and proposals. A competitor, GreenCycle, had been operating the facility for the previous five years. GreenCycle received 457 of 500 possible points and won the contract. The plaintiff received 411 points. The plaintiff sued the municipality, alleging it violated the municipal charter, because the municipality did not accept the lowest qualified bid. The municipality objected that although the plaintiff's bid was lower, GreenCycle's experience was decisive. In a corrected decision, the court concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to protest the process, absent proof of corruption, fraud or favoritism. "The Town of Fairfield," wrote the court, "conducted a fair bidding process, showing favoritism to no party." The plaintiff, as a disappointed bidder, has no right to judicial intervention, and the court granted judgment to the municipality.