545 So. 2d 1324 | Ala. | 1989
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Hill Rom, Inc., and the Health Care Authority of Athens and Limestone County ("Hospital"), in a suit for injunctive relief filed by Hospital Systems, Inc. ("HSI"). We affirm.
In August 1987, the Hospital invited bids for the alteration and expansion of its facility in Athens, Alabama. HSI and Hill Rom, manufacturers of patient headwall systems,1 were both listed as "acceptable bidders" by the architectural firm retained by the Hospital for this renovation. This same architectural firm prepared the specifications for the project, which specifications included the guidelines to be used by the contractors in preparing their bids and included the bid form itself.
HSI, through the project's general contractor, submitted a bid for the installation of 29 patient headwall systems as a part of the overall construction project. Hill Rom submitted a bid that exceeded the overall base bid of HSI by approximately $52,460. The Hospital informed HSI that it had awarded the contract for the patient headwall systems to Hill Rom because the design of the system offered by Hill Rom "most closely met the specifications and quality desired" by the Hospital.
HSI expressed its concerns regarding the Hospital's actions in letters to the administrator of the Hospital and to the chairman of the Hospital's board of directors. In these letters, HSI reaffirmed its experience in the manufacture and installation of patient headwall systems and went on to state that the bid submitted by Hill Rom was excessive. The Hospital did not alter its position, and HSI sued the Hospital and Hill Rom, seeking to enjoin the execution of the contract between the Hospital and Hill Rom.
In its complaint, HSI alleged that, because Hill Rom was not the lowest bidder for the sale and installation of the patient headwall systems, the Hospital's awarding the contract to Hill Rom violated Alabama's Competitive Bid Law (Alabama Code 1975, §
At the hearing on the summary judgment motions, HSI challenged the constitutionality of Code 1975, §
After considering the pleadings and the affidavits and counter-affidavits filed in support of the pleadings, the trial court entered summary judgment for the defendants, holding that "the issues raised by [HSI] are not actionable under §
HSI first argues that summary judgment for the defendants was improper because §
"No . . . law . . . making . . . exclusive grants of special privileges or immunities shall be passed by the legislature. . . ."3
The Competitive Bid Law provides, in pertinent part:
"All expenditures of funds of whatever nature for labor, services or work, or for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or other personal property made by . . . the county commissions and the governing bodies of the municipalities of this State . . . shall be made under contractual agreement entered into by free and open competitive bidding, on sealed bids, to the lowest responsible bidder. . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)
The Hospital, however, is a "health care authority," incorporated pursuant to the provisions of Code 1975, §
The exemption from the Competitive Bid Law enjoyed by the Hospital is "part and parcel" of legislation creating and maintaining public authorities in Alabama. See, for example, §
It is, however, equally true that the governmental entities normally responsible for providing these services too often lack sufficient funds to justify the expenditure of city or county tax revenues in these areas. Thus, the "authority," through its separate existence, provides the required service with funds obtained from sources other than the tax revenues of a governmental entity. We hold, therefore, that the legislation under which the Hospital is incorporated, and by which it acquires its exemption from the Competitive Bid Law, violates neither the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution nor § 22 of the Alabama State Constitution.
Assuming, however, for the sake of discussion, that contracts entered into by the Hospital were subject to the requirements of the Competitive Bid Law, we would nonetheless be compelled to reject HSI's arguments on this issue.
White v. McDonald Ford Tractor Co.,"It is fair to say that the legislative intent in passing the Competitive Bid Law was to get the best quality equipment at the lowest possible price, and the executive authorities should carry out this intent of the legislature. These officials must have discretion, [but] not an unbridled discretion. . . . . The single most important requirement of the Competitive Bid Law is the good faith of the officials charged in executing the requirements of the law."
Reviewing the record on appeal, we find no evidence to support HSI's claim that the Hospital acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith in awarding the contract for the patient headwall systems to Hill Rom. *1327 We do find, however, from the pleadings and from the affidavits submitted in support of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, evidence of the Hospital's exercise of good faith toward the citizens of Limestone County — potential patients of the Hospital in need of the care provided by the features of a patient headwall system — in awarding the contract to the supplier whose product most closely fit the specification standards developed by the project architect and the quality of product desired by the Hospital.
Because we hold that the exemption allowed by §
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this case was proper. That judgment, therefore, is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.
"The provisions of articles 2 and 3 of chapter 16 of Title 41 shall not apply to any authority, the members of its board or any of its officers or employees."
