Construction Diva, L.L.C. v. New Orleans Aviation Board
206 So. 3d 1029
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- The City of New Orleans issued an Invitation to Bid for an "Airport Property Landscaping Annual Maintenance" contract requiring 40% participation by certified State/Local Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (SLDBE).
- Construction Diva, certified by the City as an SLDBE in building/construction categories (not landscaping), submitted the lowest numerical bid and claimed it satisfied the 40% SLDBE goal.
- The City rejected Construction Diva’s bid as non-responsive because Construction Diva was not SLDBE-certified specifically in landscaping and awarded the contract to the next lowest bidder.
- Construction Diva filed a bid protest, then suit seeking a preliminary injunction (and TRO already granted) or a writ of mandamus to compel award of the contract to it.
- The trial court denied the preliminary injunction and the writ of mandamus; the appellate court affirmed, holding Construction Diva failed to show (1) a prohibitory-law violation that would excuse irreparable-harm proof and (2) entitlement to mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City deviated from bid documents/public bid law by rejecting Construction Diva for lacking SLDBE landscaping certification | City impermissibly deviated; bid documents did not require SLDBE certification in landscaping specifically | Bid documents described a landscaping contract; Construction Diva was not SLDBE-certified in landscaping, so rejection complied with the bid requirements | Held: No unlawful deviation; City acted consistently with bid documents and Public Bid Law |
| Whether Construction Diva may invoke Jurisich exception to avoid proving irreparable harm (i.e., show direct violation of a prohibitory law) | The City’s rejection violated prohibitory public-bid statutes, so irreparable-harm showing is unnecessary | City did not violate any prohibitory law because bid required landscapingspecific capacity and Construction Diva lacked that SLDBE certification | Held: Construction Diva failed to prove a prohibitory-law violation; Jurisich exception not applicable; no irreparable harm shown |
| Whether preliminary injunction should issue to preserve status quo and compel award | Injunction warranted because City's rejection was unlawful and monetary damages inadequate | No adequate showing of irreparable injury or likelihood of success on merits | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying preliminary injunction |
| Whether writ of mandamus should compel award to Construction Diva | Mandamus appropriate because City had a ministerial duty to award to lowest responsive bidder | Awarding would force City to deviate from bid requirements; duty was not ministerial under facts | Held: Denial of mandamus affirmed; no clear abuse of discretion because City complied with duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Jurisich v. Jenkins, 749 So.2d 597 (La. 1999) (establishes exception to irreparable-harm requirement when conduct violates a prohibitory law and injunction is prohibitory)
- Enmon Enterprises, L.L.C. v. City of New Orleans ex rel. New Orleans Aviation Bd., 76 So.3d 548 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (limits on public entity deviations from bid documents)
- Broadmoor L.L.C. v. Ernest N. Morial New Orleans Exhibition Hall Authority, 867 So.2d 651 (La. 2004) (public-entity bid deviations disfavored)
- Hamps Construction, L.L.C. v. City of New Orleans, 924 So.2d 104 (La. 2006) (restrictions on deviations from public bidding laws)
- Concrete Busters of Louisiana, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, 69 So.3d 484 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (mandamus may be remedy in public-bid contexts where law requires award)
- Smith v. Brumfield, 133 So.3d 70 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (standards for preliminary injunction and lesser prima facie burden)