AMHERST — Lawyers representing both statewide unions and a Springfield construction company are calling on the Massachusetts attorney general’s Fair Labor Division to disqualify the apparent low bidder for Amherst’s $97.5 million elementary school project, contending that CTA Construction Managers of Waltham has violated the town’s responsible employer bylaw.

The appeals came at a nearly four-hour virtual hearing on Oct. 29 on the bid protest filed by the Foundation for Fair Contracting of Massachusetts and the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters. The protest has already held up the town in signing a contract with CTA, potentially delaying work on the new school that is supposed to open on South East Street, next to Fort River School, in the fall of 2026.

CTA’s $73.48 million bid was lowest of three bids and $4.8 million below the funding ceiling agreement between the town and the state.

During the first two hours Tuesday, lawyers gave the attorneys sitting on the Fair Labor Division panel reasons to deny the bid.

Luke Liacos, a lawyer with Martindale-Hubbell of Boston and representing the unions, alleged that CTA was not truthful and forthcoming in its statements to the town, questioned the general eligibility of CTA, and claimed the company had provided false and misleading information in its bid documents.

Part of what Liacos contends is that CTA may not be the same company that has handled similar construction projects elsewhere in the state, but rather a new entity.

Liacos also said that a CTA subcontractor, Barber Drywall of Wareham, is alleged to have payroll violations and judgments against it. By carrying an ineligible subcontractor, that violates Amherst’s responsible employer bylaw, Liacos said.

The bylaw is meant to ensure Amherst awards contracts for goods and services and public construction, and grants tax relief agreements, only to responsible contractors who are able to certify that they are in compliance with wage and hour laws. The bylaw is enforced through the written contracts when bids are awarded.

“In the interest of full transparency, it should have disclosed it had this judgment against it,” Liacos said.

Drew Colby, an attorney with Kenney & Sams of Boston, representing Fontaine Brothers Inc., which submitted a $75.62 million bid, told the attorneys on the Fair Labor Division panel that violating the town bylaws are the most germane reasons the low bidder should be rejected. Colby said awarding the contract to CTA would be “arbitrary and capricious” under the circumstances.

But attorney John McNamara of Lane McNamara LLP of Southborough, representing CTA, said the accusations about fraud and misleading the town, and the claim that it submitted its bid in bad faith, wouldn’t withstand scrutiny in a court of law.

McNamara said that CTA, as the only open-shop contractor on the school bid, was having its bid challenged as part of an effort by the unions to “break the back” of CTA. Open-shop contracting means businesses can hire both union and non-union workers.

Following the meeting, Town Manager Paul Bockelman issued a statement expressing appreciation for the review of the bid protest.

“All participants were given the opportunity to share their opinions and arguments and answered questions posed by the attorney general’s staff,” Bockelman said. “We await the attorney general’s decision, which we hope will be expedited.”

According to information from the attorney general’s office: “When resolving a public building construction or public works construction bid protest, the Attorney General’s Office applies the applicable and relevant law to the facts that are found at the hearing. The applicable law is derived from three sources: statutory law, case law, and prior bid protest decisions from the former Department of Labor and Industries and the Attorney General’s Office.”