*1 568 was was stabber. He Bishop’s not believe he did Cruz believed who he stabbed
then defense counsel asked was sus- objection Nollie Commonwealth’s Bishop. in chambers. Cruz argument by counsel following tained line of to allow this refusing maintains the court erred Detective Gallo’s belief as cross-examination and expert as opinion. was admissible identity the stabber’s as to the opinion clear that Detective Gallo’s It is expert opinion as qualified actual would not have stabber skills for special beyond as it did not call inasmuch Crawford, Pa. v. 468 Commonwealth reach. See layman’s Pa. O’Searo, v. 466 (1976); 660 364 A.2d Commonwealth Further, we are persuaded by A.2d into this cross-examination limiting trial court’s reason area, Cruz, else, no one was on trial for viz. that Jose Thus, opinion Detective Gallo’s murder of Nollie Bishop. irrelevant to the co-conspirator Cruz’s identity have diverted the guilt. It would question only of Cruz’s task of Cruz’s assessing guilt. from the jury’s attention sentence affirmed. Judgment of ROBERTS, J., the result. concurs in
414 A.2d COMPANY, INC., Appellant, TOTALISATOR AMERICAN al., Corporation. and Control Data Charles et S. SELIGMAN Supreme Pennsylvania. Court
Argued Jan. May Decided *3 Gutin, for ap- Philadelphia, David Kittredge, Patrick W. in No. appellee in No. 162 and for pellant Gen., in appellees Atty. Murphy, Deputy Donald J. Nos. 162 and Shibla, Sinon, Harrisburg, appel- Stephen
Frank A. R. in No. 170. for appellant lee in No. 162 and ROBERTS, NIX, J, O’BRIEN, EAGEN, and C. Before FLAHERTY, JJ. and LARSEN THE COURT OF
OPINION O’BRIEN, Justice. bidding the competitive concerns controversy
The instant supply equipment for the award of a contract and process Game Numbers Daily for the to be used technology and Lotteries. the Bureau State operated by Lotteries Bureau of State February On to submit inviting companies proposal, issued a Appellant, game. numbers daily computerized bids for a intervenor-appel- Inc., and Company, Totalisator companies only were the Corporation, lee, Control that the con- stated for proposal The request bids. submit the concept with “conformity in be awarded would tract bidder,” provided: and further the lowest : The Bu- Recommendations Suggestions “Innovative suggestions invites innovative welcomes and reau the operation who feel from bidders recommendations sugges- Such improved. can be lottery daily the proposed for, but substituted not be may and recommendations tion this required provisions to bid in addition should be for failure to rejected or disqualified bid will be RFP. No In the recommendations. suggestions such submit any determines committee the evaluation event that further ex- is worth recommendation or suggestion such to conform have an opportunity will all bidders ploration, provisions.” revised with the in accordance their proposals added.) (Emphasis and Control 26,1976, both American March
On reviewed by which were proposals, technical Data submitted propos- said technical To review committee.1 an evaluation areas: eight into inquiry divided its als, committee capabilities, management reports control systems, internal main- terminal, computer facility, central training, security, *4 per- company of ability and general capabilities tenance be- disparity no significant found The committee form. areas; however, the eight in six of two proposals tween the Data received training, and of terminal in the areas because, pursuant grades significantly higher suggestions, for innovative invitation proposals’ for e., proposal, i. provided proposal that the technical request for 1. The services, management supply equipment and proposal the of the would be opened proposals and con- were the cost reviewed before sidered. a tube2 at the ray included the use of cathode Data had Totalisator, however, was terminals. (American agents’ to include proposal a chance to amend never given tubes the terminals. ray agents’ cathode at 2, 1976, of American Totalisa- proposals June the cost On It meeting. at a opened public tor and Control Data were the cost were proposals became immediately apparent bases; American Totalisator had calculated on different while Control Data’s bid was effective basis used an rate of Reve- Secretary rate. Acting based on an accumulative letters to bidders seeking sent both Seligman nue Charles whether the asking of their cost proposals clarification rate rate. effective or accumulative bids were based on was indeed its bid responded American Totalisator Data con- an rate basis. Control calculated on effective basis; subse- had an accumulative rate firmed that it used effective was submitted. In a bid based the rate on quently its cost effect, proposal Data was allowed amend secret bid of American Totalisa- after the seeing supposedly chance to amend its bid. On the tor, which was given which cost proposal, of Control Data’s amended basis Totalisator,3 Control Data than the bid of American lower June the contract on 1976. was awarded Totalisator filed a July On petition Court, enjoin seeking in the Commonwealth review into contract with Control entering from Commonwealth Department respondents Data. The named petition Lotteries, Revenue, Secretary Bureau State (and at times Deputy Secretary Revenue Milton Lupes, ray impressed tube for The committee was cathode two Second, First, agents. training the tube facilitated reasons. tube, displayed winning by using on number could be each terminal. 50) chancellor, (Finding findings of fact No. stated: “The his 26) employees (Finding prepared by before ei- Bureau calculations (1) responded Seligman’s letters indicated that if bidder ther basis and bid on a cumulative bid on an effective rate CDC AmTote basis, (2) on March 1976 were both bids as submitted [request proposal], responsive AmTote’s complete bid added.) (Emphasis than CDC’s was lower [bid].”
573 Lotteries and Bureau of State Seligman Acting Secretary) Nelson. Control Appellee R. Lynn Executive Director 6, 1976, following August to intervene. On permitted American Totali- denied Court hearing, the Commonwealth Control Data injunction. preliminary for a request sator’s contract, effective Octo- executed and the Commonwealth in operation been 1, Game has Daily The Numbers ber 1976. 1, 1977. since March re- petition filed an amended Totalisator
American Bu- stay to view, Commonwealth Court requesting Data. Both award the contract to reau’s decision to ob- preliminary Data filed and Control the Commonwealth standing lacked Totalisator jections, alleging a cause action. failed state petition to sue and that objec- the preliminary Court overruled The Commonwealth al., et 27 Co., Inc. Seligman, tions. American Data and the 639, (1976). 367 756 Pa.Cmwlth. A.2d filed, in March of answers and then Commonwealth petition American Totalisator’s amended new matter to to the answers responded review. American Totalisator case be listed for matter requested new containing requested the American Totalisator response, trial. In its alia, order, (1) inter the Common- Court to Commonwealth (2) in question wealth award it contract received under the allegedly Data to disgorge any profits illegal contract. June
A held chancellor from trial was his decree nisi on The issued June chancellor with Control 18, 1977, (1) decreeing October 2, 1978, (2) Commonwealth of March Data void as however, chancellor, refused award The solicit new bids. to order disgorge to American Totalisator or the contract except Both filed companies Data’s profits. ment Control Co., Pa. Seligman, Inc. v. ions.4 American Totalisator A.2d 242 Cmwlth. 17, 1977, issued a new the Commonwealth
On November sought to en- When both proposal. companies any exceptions. not file Commonwealth did *6 it the issuance of the the chancellor ordered join request, 2, 1977, postponed withdrawn. December the chancellor On contract, the cancellation of the the date existing extending 1978; 2, 2, 1978 to he further allowed the July from March for Both request proposal. companies issuance of a third 28, submitted bids which were on December opened Control Data was once the low bidder and award- again contract, to run from 1978 until July ed the which was 1, 1980. July 15, 1978, Court, en sitting March the Commonwealth
On banc, of the filed exceptions by dismissed all prothonotary and Data and directed the Control Amer to enter the chancellor’s decree nisi as a final decree. al., Co., v. et 34 Pa.Cmwlth. Seligman, ican Totalisator Inc. Both filed (1978). companies, appeals 384 A.2d disposition. the matter now before us for final is Data, have reverse Control in its would us cross-appeal, reinstate the con- original the Commonwealth Court and tract. Totalisator, Data first that American argues bidder, bring had no this disappointed standing meritless, as we have held that a
action. This
is
argument
award of a
standing
enjoin
improper
has
taxpayer
the fact
and such
is not defeated
public
standing
is also a
bidder.
taxpayer
disappointed
that the complaining
Commonwealth,
v.
472 Pa.
Lutz
Printers Inc.
Appellate
concerning
As there is no
dispute
As Blumenschein discretion for adminis judicial law forbid the substitution believe, however, that the govern trative We discretion. had no discretion simply in this case agencies mental bids original Data on award the contract previ on two reasons. As belief is based submitted. Our invited mentioned, proposal original request ously its own request, by suggestions. the use of innovative terms, stated: committee determines
“In event that the evaluation or recommendation is worth suggestion such any opportunity all bidders will have an further exploration, in accordance with the revised their proposals confirm provisions.” Data’s use found that Control the chancellor
Instantly, an terminals was such agents’ tube at the the cathode ray fact, was the In the use of the tube innovative suggestion. recommendation in the evaluation committee’s crucial factor of American proposal over the proposal of Control Data’s never an given opportunity as the latter was at the terminals agents’ cathode tube ray include the use of abide failed to in its As the Commonwealth proposal. view, lacked, in it our proposal, terms of its own request Data, contract to Control the instant discretion to award any *8 intervention. judicial thus warranting of findings the chancellor made no We that acknowledge Nevertheless, action. faith, fraud or capricious bad competitive of elementary principles chancellor did find that when Data was allowed to had been violated bidding bid had been after American Totalisator’s its bid “clarify” clarification, Data’s bid was Before the opened. Totalisator; after the yet, than the bid of American higher the instant was true. The evil of opposite clarification the is bidding When competitive is procedure readily apparent. the benefits of used and the followed emasculate procedures intervention is proper. we believe bidding, judicial such should be that the argument original Control Data’s the chancellor we believe must be as rejected, reinstated also, bids submitted. See ordering in new acted correctly Commonwealth, 559, 485 Pa. v. Appellate Lutz Printers A.2d 530 only it was the that
American Totalisator such, bidder and lowest responsive and We contract. it the instant erred in not awarding chancellor case, chancellor, instant in the because, the agree, do not As rebidding. was to order best solution decided that the discretion, the chancellor we believe no abuse of we can find requested in American Totalisator’s refusing did not err relief. that the chan American Totalisator argues
Finally, disgorge Data to require to refusing erred in cellor As the entire Com contract. profits original from de stated, confirming the chancellor’s monwealth Court nisi: cree one awarded was that the contract
“. . . facts of Bureau Lotteries of the general powers within the of bad finding not make, justify the evidence did fecklessness, part on the faith, as from mere distinguished CDC, had Acting Secretary of the respondents that the Common- his sought lawyers, the advice of no services at a price wealth the benefit CDC’s had bid, support than AmTote tend higher originally relief. afford this type decision Chancellor’s relief Furthermore, of such drastic again, provision harmed, with or embarrassed the interfered might have numbers daily successful highly operation continued dis- the Commonwealth’s We discern no abuse of game. the decree respect with relief afforded cretion Co., Inc. Seligman, supra, nisi.” American Totalisator 440-41, A.2d at 269. Pa.Cmwlth. at discre- did not abuse his the chancellor agree We likewise tion. own costs. pay Each party
Decree affirmed. J., LARSEN, dissenting opinion. files a *9 LARSEN, Justice, dissenting. judicial recognizes
I dissent. Even the majority principles “the elementary intervention was because proper Data had when been violated competitive bidding its American Totalisator’s allowed bid after ‘clarify’ However, majori- I with the disagree been bid had opened.” ordering acted properly conclusion that chancellor ty’s had new bids since the submission of bidder; such, I and, in fact been the lowest Totalisator. now the contract to American would award compel disgorge would Additionally, I profits Commonwealth.