This is a bill for declaratory relief seeking to have declared invalid the awarding of a certain subcontract by the Medford Housing Authority (Authority) to Fred J. Findlen & Sons (Findlen), whiсh was also awarded the general contract. The judge made “Findings, Rulings and Order for Decree.” A final decree was entered declaring, in substance, that Findlen “does not have the legal right to perform the sub-trade ’ ’ for which the subcontract was awarded. Findlen was also enjoined from proceeding further with work оn the subcontract and from receiving further payments for such work, and the Authority was enjoined from approving the release of any funds to Findlen in connection with the subcontract until Findlen, as general contractor, entered into a new subcontract after compliance by the Authority with Gr. L. c. 149, §§ 44A-44L. The defendants аppealed from the final decree. 2 The evidence is reported.
From the findings of the judge it appears that the “Authority invited sealed bids and sub-bids, including sub-bids for the fabrication of structural steel and miscellaneous metal work, for the construction of a housing project in Medford for the elderly . . . , all in accordance with Gh L. c. 149, §§ 44A-L.” The plaintiff “seаsonably filed a proper sub-bid for the metal work and its price was the •lowest. There were seven other sub-bidders for the structural steel and miscellaneоus metal work. Findlen, who was the selected low general bidder, filed a sub-bid for the metal work and carried . . . [itself] as . . . [its] own *87 metal work subcontractor. The Authority awаrded the . . . contract to Findlen as the metal work subcontractor. ... At the time that the Authority awarded Findlen the general contract and the metal work subcontract, . . . [the plaintiff] protested to the Authority that the Findlen sub-bid for metal work was invalid because Findlen did not customarily perform the metal work with its own employеes.”
■ 1. The judge ruled that although
‘
‘ [t]here is no compulsion for the low general bidder to include a low sub-bid in its general bid nor can a low sub-bidder compel its inclusion in a general bid.
East Side Construction Co.
v.
Adams,
It is well established that a bidder on a contract governed by G. L. c. 149, §§ 44A-44L has standing to challenge the compliance of the awarding authority with the requirements of those sections. See
Grande & Son, Inc.
v.
School Housing Comm. of No. Reading,
2. The judge found ‘ ‘ There is no evidence that the Authority ever considered, investigated, passed upon or had any knowledge of whethеr Findlen customarily performed with its own employees the miscellaneous metal work which was included in its sub-bid.” General Laws c. 149, § 44J, permits a general bidder to submit a subbid if hе “customarily performs with his own employees ’ ’ the subtrade, but states that “ [n] o such sub-bid by a general bidder shall be considered, however, unless the general bidder cаn show, to the satisfaction of the awarding authority, that he does customarily perform such sub-trade, and is qualified to do the character of work required by thе applicable section of the specifications.”
The finding of the judge shows that the Authority did not comply with the requirements of this section, and hence it should not have considered the subbid of the general bidder. Consequently, Findlen could not be the subcontractor for this subtrade. Cf.
Burgess & Blacher Co.
v.
Beverly Housing Authy.
The judge also found, on the basis of testimony to which the defendants consistently objected, that “[o]n all the facts . . . Findlen did not customarily perform with its own employees the sub-trade of structural steel and miscellaneous metal work and thus was ineligible to submit a sub-bid for such work to the Authority.” Citing
East Side Constr. Co. Inc.
v. Adams,
It is true that a general bidder must satisfy the requirements of G. L. c. 149, § 44J, regarding his customary performance of the subtrade with his own employees. But it is equаlly clear that the statute requires the awarding authority to satisfy itself that the general bidder “does customarily perform such sub-trade, and is qualified to do the character of work required by the applicable section of the specifications.” Where, as here, the awarding authority has not satisfied itself in this regаrd the judge is not empowered to make his own determination of the general bidder ’s customary practice or qualifications and it was error for him to dо so. He can only review the decisions of the Authority in order to determine whether the statutory standards have been met, with due regard to the discretion vested in the Authority by the statute.
Gifford
v.
Commissioner of Pub. Health,
3. Findlen also argues that injunctive relief was not justified because “there is nothing in the record to show either (a) how the plaintiff derives any benefit from' . . . [the] injunction or (b) how the plaintiff would be injured if thе injunction had not been granted.” We do not agree.
The possibility that the plaintiff, as a subcontractor which seasonably filed a proper subbid, could bе awarded the subcontract was sufficient to give it standing to bring this suit and is a sufficient proprietary interest to justify injunctive relief.
The decree is to be modified in aсcordance with this opinion and as so modified is affirmed.
So ordered.
Notes
The Authority did not prosecute its appeal.
“3. Fred J. Findlen, Joseph E. Findlen, Robert A. Findlen, Fred P. Findlen, and John J. Power d/b/a Fred J. Findlen & Sons does not customarily pеrform with its own employees the sub-trade of structural steel and miscellaneous metal and thus is ineligible to submit a sub-bid for such sub-trade to the Medford Housing Authority. 4. The sub-bid for the sub-trаde of structural steel and miscellaneous metal of Fred J. Findlen, Joseph E. Findlen, Robert A. Findlen, Fred P. Findlen, and John J. Power d/b/a Fred J. Findlen & Sons is invalid and in conflict with the prоvisions of G. L. e. 149, § 44J because Fred J. Findlen, Joseph E. Findlen, Robert A. Findlen, Fred P. Findlen, and John J. Power d/b/a Fred J. Findlen & Sons does not customarily perform with its own employees the work of that sub-trade and its subcontract fpr that sub-trade is invalid,”