167 So. 3d 682
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Coastal Protection & Restoration Authority advertised a barrier-island preservation project; bid deadline extended to Aug. 6, 2013. Only two bids received: Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (Great Lakes) and Weeks Marine.
- On Aug. 13, 2013 Coastal Protection rejected both bids; Great Lakes’ bid was rejected as non-responsive for leaving “Ref. No. 16” (unit price for Construction Surveys, Alternate #2) blank.
- Great Lakes filed for a writ of mandamus on Aug. 14, 2013, asking the court to compel award of the contract, arguing the omission was a clerical error and its bid was otherwise lowest and responsible.
- Coastal Protection answered and filed exceptions asserting unauthorized use of summary proceedings and no cause of action (mandamus not available because the agency acted discretarily). Parties submitted briefs and exhibits; no live testimony.
- Trial court sustained the exceptions and dismissed Great Lakes’ petition with prejudice; Great Lakes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is available to compel award where awarding authority rejected all bids for "just cause." | Great Lakes: rejection was improper; agency had no discretion to reject its bid under the facts. | Coastal Protection: rejection was discretionary under La. R.S. 38:2214(B); mandamus (a remedy for ministerial duties) does not lie. | Court: Agency decision was discretionary; mandamus generally unavailable to command discretionary acts (but mandamus can correct arbitrary or capricious abuse of discretion). |
| Whether rejection of Great Lakes’ bid as non-responsive (omission of unit price line item 16) was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. | Great Lakes: omission was a clerical/insubstantial error; bid should not be disqualified—alternates were not accepted so the missing unit price was immaterial. | Coastal Protection: bid documents and Instructions to Bidders required all blanks, unit prices, and alternates be completed; omission rendered bid incomplete and non-responsive; rejection was within statutory discretion and not arbitrary. | Court: Instructions and bid form made completion mandatory; omission was material and not excused by statute or logic. Rejection was not arbitrary or capricious. No cause of action for mandamus; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newman Marchive Partnership, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 979 So.2d 1262 (La. 2008) (defines ministerial duty and limits of mandamus)
- Haughton Elevator Div. v. State, Div. of Administration, 367 So.2d 1161 (La. 1979) (awarding bodies vested with discretion; courts defer to good-faith administrative judgment)
- Roof Tech., Inc. v. State, Div. of Administration, 29 So.3d 621 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2009) (form requirements and non-waiver of bid form provisions)
- Lemoine Co. v. Lafayette Airport Comm’n, 54 So.3d 140 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2010) (distinguishes when filling blanks that have no bearing is absurd)
- Boggs & Poole Contracting Group, Inc. v. Caddo-Bossier Parish Port Comm’n, 54 So.3d 1126 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2010) (interpretation of proper place to write bid amount on form)