Scientific Games International, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Revenue
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 590
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- DGS issued an RFP (July 8, 2010) for a Central Computer Control System to monitor slot machines; evaluation was 50% technical, 30% cost, 20% disadvantaged businesses; Robert W. Hayes et al. represented Scientific Games, and GTECH protested.
- Scientific Games and GTECH submitted proposals; Scientific Games scored higher and was recommended for contract negotiations; Scientific Games applied for a PGCB license on Oct 19, 2010.
- A contract was executed with Scientific Games on May 2, 2011, but only electronically affixed signatures appeared; no handwritten DGS signatures.
- GTECH protested the award; Henning issued a final determination denying the protest with a minor rescore exception; DGS cancelled Scientific Games’ RFP on Aug 4, 2010, claiming it was in the Commonwealth’s best interests without further justification.
- Scientific Games filed a two-count equity and declaratory relief action seeking either specific performance under a valid contract or, if no contract exists, an injunction against rebid; DGS and GTECH filed preliminary objections.
- The court addresses whether it has jurisdiction, whether an adequate administrative remedy exists, and whether specific performance is available against a Commonwealth agency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to determine contract existence | Scientific Games asserts jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 7532 and 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(d). | DGS/GTECH contend exclusive Board of Claims jurisdiction under 62 Pa.C.S. § 1724(a). | Court has jurisdiction; nonmonetary relief permitted under 1724(d). |
| Whether there is an adequate administrative remedy at law | Section 1712.1 claim process is not exclusive for nonmonetary relief; declaratory relief appropriate. | Section 1712.1 provides the sole forum for contractor claims; otherwise adequate remedy exists. | Remedy at law is not exclusive for nonmonetary relief; Board of Claims jurisdiction not required. |
| Whether specific performance is an available remedy against a Commonwealth agency | Specific performance should be available if contract exists and is enforceable. | Public contracts typically foreclose specific performance; Board of Claims rationale outdated where monetary relief is involved. | Specific performance may be available; not categorically barred against the Commonwealth. |
| Whether Scientific Games has standing to challenge rebid as a contract holder | Scientific Games has property interest from a contract and seeks reasons for ‘best interests’ cancellation. | Disappointed bidders have no standing; no contract or rights conferred. | Scientific Games has standing as a contract holder; no administrative remedy to challenge rebid under 62 Pa.C.S. § 1711.1(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Statewide Bldg. Maintenance, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority, 160 Pa.Cmwlth. 544, 635 A.2d 691 (1993) (Board of Claims jurisdiction to determine contract existence)
- Shovel Transfer and Storage, Inc. v. Simpson and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 523 Pa. 235, 565 A.2d 1153 (1989) (contractual claims against Commonwealth)
- Ezy Parks v. Larson, 499 Pa. 615, 454 A.2d 928 (1982) (exclusive jurisdiction to hear contractual matters involving the Commonwealth)
- Emergency Medical Services Council, Inc. v. Department of Health, 499 Pa. 1, 451 A.2d 206 (1982) (sovereign immunity and Board of Claims jurisdiction)
- Clark v. Pennsylvania State Police, 496 Pa. 310, 436 A.2d 1383 (1981) (exclusive jurisdiction principles in contractual disputes)
- Vespaziani v. Department of Revenue, 40 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 54, 396 A.2d 489 (1979) (procurement and administrative relief considerations)
- XPress Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 503 Pa. 399, 469 A.2d 1000 (1983) (specific performance under Board of Claims framework; evolving jurisdiction)