Hillside Landscape Construction, Inc. v. City of Lewiston, 264 P.3d 388

City of Lewiston advertised for bids to replace a golf course irrigation system; required bidders to hold an Idaho public works license and specific experience.
Hillside sent a letter requesting Category B prequalification if experience qualifications were required; City refused.
Bids were submitted; Hillside bid lowest but deemed non-compliant for lacking required experience; Landscapes Unlimited was awarded.
Hillside filed suit seeking injunctive, declaratory relief and damages; district court found City complied with bidding statutes and dismissed.
Contract was awarded and project completed; Hillside argued for damages and City sought attorney fees; district court denied most requests.
Court later vacated the district court judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with its interpretation of Category A vs Category B.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Under Category A, can a city disqualify a bidder for lack of experience?	Hillside argues Category A allows rejection only for license, bid compliance, or apparent noncompliance.	City argues Category A permits considering any factor that determines qualification.	No; Category A restricts to license, administrative compliance, and lowest qualified bid; lack of experience cannot be used in Category A.
Is the case moot after contract award and project completion?	Hillside contends ongoing damages claim survives despite mootness.	City argues mootness since contract completed and injunction moot.	Not moot because damages claim survives independent of injunction.
Should attorney fees on appeal be decided before remand?	Hillside seeks fees under 12-117 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.	City requests fees if prevailing party; issue premature.	Premature to determine prevailing party; remand appropriate for further proceedings.

State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223 (2004) (mootness and justiciability framework)
Neilsen & Co. v. Cassia and Twin Falls County Joint Class A School District No. 151, 96 Idaho 763 (1975) (damages when bid void and amended pleadings seek recovery)
Beco Const. Co., Inc. v. Idaho Falls, 124 Idaho 859 (1993) (discretion to determine responsible bidder prior to bidding)
Seysler v. Mowery, 29 Idaho 412 (1916) (factors for bidder responsibility and contract award)
Davaz v. Priest River Glass Co., Inc., 125 Idaho 333 (1994) (statutory interpretation; exclusive list of prequalification standards)
State v. Mercer, 143 Idaho 108 (2006) (statutory construction; give effect to all words)
In re Winton Lumber Co., 57 Idaho 131 (1936) (statutory interpretation and avoidance of redundancy)