Byrne & Jones Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Byrne and Jones Construction v. Monroe City R-1 School District
2016 Mo. LEXIS 250
Mo.2016Background
- Monroe City R-I School District worked with ATG Sports on design and the RFP for a high school athletics stadium; Byrne & Jones and ATG were the only bidders.
- Byrne & Jones submitted the lowest base and overall (13-alternate) bid; when the district selected only seven alternates, ATG’s bid became lowest and the district awarded the contract to ATG.
- Byrne & Jones sued claiming the district colluded with and favored ATG, denying Byrne & Jones a fair and equal opportunity to compete; it sought injunctive relief and bid-preparation costs.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of standing, reasoning unsuccessful bidders lack a protected interest under §177.086 and only taxpayers may enforce public bidding laws.
- The Supreme Court of Missouri held Byrne & Jones had standing to challenge the award based on alleged denial of a fair and equal opportunity to compete, but affirmed dismissal because requested injunctive relief was moot (stadium completed) and §177.086 does not authorize recovery of bid-preparation costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do unsuccessful bidders have standing to challenge a public contract award when they allege denial of a fair and equal opportunity to compete? | Byrne & Jones: an unsuccessful bidder has a protectable interest in a fair bidding process and thus standing to challenge favoritism/collusion. | School District: losing bidders lack a vested pecuniary interest; only taxpayers or the public may enforce bidding statutes. | Held: Losing bidders have standing to sue when they allege they were denied a fair and equal opportunity to compete. |
| Does Sevier/La Mar bar losing-bidder standing entirely? | Byrne & Jones: Sevier/La Mar do not address claims based on unfair process; precedent allows challenges where process was unfair. | School District: those cases mean only taxpayers can enforce bidding laws after award. | Held: Sevier and La Mar do not preclude a losing-bidder challenge to the fairness of the bidding process; they remain authority that bidders cannot compel award to themselves. |
| Is injunctive relief available where the contract has been performed (stadium completed)? | Byrne & Jones sought injunction against contracting with ATG. | School District: relief is moot because contract was performed and stadium completed. | Held: Injunctive relief is moot; court cannot enjoin an already-executed and completed contract. |
| May a losing bidder recover bid-preparation costs under §177.086? | Byrne & Jones: awarding costs would incentivize fair bidding and protect public interest. | School District: §177.086 contains no private cause of action for such damages; court should not create one. | Held: §177.086 does not create a cause of action or authorize bid-cost recovery; court will not infer such remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metropolitan Express Servs., Inc. v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 23 F.3d 1367 (8th Cir. 1994) (unsuccessful bidder that was denied a fair opportunity to bid is within the zone of interests protected by competitive-bidding requirements)
- Pub. Commc’ns Servs., Inc. v. Simmons, 409 S.W.3d 538 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (recognized losing-bidder standing when bidder alleges denial of a fair and equal opportunity to compete)
- Brannum v. City of Poplar Bluff, 439 S.W.3d 825 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014) (acknowledged limited circumstances where losing bidders have standing; conflated standing and merits but affirmed limits)
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Sevier, 98 S.W.2d 677 (Mo. 1936) (longstanding rule that an unsuccessful bidder generally has no private pecuniary interest to compel award of a public contract)
- La Mar Constr. Co. v. Holt Cnty. R-II Sch. Dist., 542 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976) (section 177.086 intended to protect public interest; only taxpayers may enforce cancellation of award in ordinary circumstances)
- State ex rel. Page v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. R-VI of Christian Cnty., 765 S.W.2d 317 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989) (even the lowest bidder has no automatic right to relief under competitive-bidding statute)