Kayak Centre at Wickford Cove, LLC d/b/a Kayak Centre of Rhode Island v. Town of Narragansett
116 A.3d 250
| R.I. | 2015Background
- Town of Narragansett acquired property where Narrow River Kayaks operated; town solicited five-year bids (concession) to operate paddle-sports business.
- Invitation required minimum 5 years' experience; minimum annual payment $15,000; Kayak Centre bid far higher payments than incumbent Narrow River.
- Parks & Recreation recommended award to Kayak Centre based on experience, references, and higher total payments.
- Town council voted 3–1 to reject all bids and rebid with additional criteria; Kayak Centre sued seeking declaratory relief (statutory violation of G.L. §45-55-5), criminal count, and injunctive relief.
- Superior Court held §45-55-5 inapplicable and denied injunctive/declaratory relief; appellate court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for findings under the Gilbane good-faith standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §45-55-5 (competitive sealed bidding statute) | §45-55-5 governs municipal contracts broadly and should apply to concession/lease-like contracts for town property | §45-55-5 governs procurements/purchases where public funds are expended; concession (revenue-generating) contracts fall outside its plain scope | §45-55-5 is inapplicable to this concession contract; statute’s plain text addresses procurements/purchases, not revenue concessions; trial court correctly refused declaratory relief under §45-55-5 |
| Standard of judicial review for concession award process | Even without §45-55-5, awarding authority must follow statutory-like safeguards; Kayak Centre asked injunctive relief under Gilbane fairness standard | Town argued review is premature because no award was made; process decisions are within municipal discretion | Gilbane’s good-faith/sound-discretion standard applies to concession bidding; remand required for trial court findings on whether town acted corruptly, in bad faith, or palpably abused discretion |
| Ability to review decision where bids were rejected (no award) | Court may review bidding procedures even if no final award exists because process can be challenged | Defendants contended lack of a completed award precludes review | Court held prior precedent permits review of bidding process before award (citing National Car Rental) and proceeded to remand for fact-finding |
| Level of deference and burdens on challenger | Kayak Centre urged relief based on town’s rejection and rebid decision | Town asserted high bar for upset: challenger must show corruption, bad faith, or palpable abuse of discretion | Court reiterated high burden for challengers under Gilbane but required trial-level findings to determine if burden met; remanded for factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbane Building Co. v. Board of Trustees of State Colleges, 107 R.I. 295, 267 A.2d 396 (R.I. 1970) (establishes good-faith/sound-discretion standard for public bid awards)
- H.V. Collins Co. v. Tarro, 696 A.2d 298 (R.I. 1997) (awarding authority may consider factors beyond price to protect public funds)
- National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Fazzano, 112 R.I. 56, 307 A.2d 770 (R.I. 1973) (court may review bidding process even before award is made)
- Paul Goldman, Inc. v. Burns, 109 R.I. 236, 283 A.2d 673 (R.I. 1971) (court will not interfere absent corruption, bad faith, or palpable abuse)
- Narragansett Food Services, Inc. v. Rhode Island Department of Labor, 420 A.2d 805 (R.I. 1980) (legislature presumed aware of existing law when enacting statutes)