RAY ANDING CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 38,228-CA
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit
March 5, 2004
867 So. 2d 1005
Before BROWN, WILLIAMS, and GASKINS, JJ.
Shotwell, Brown & Sperry, by: C.A. Martin, III, Monroe, for Intervenor/Appellant, Traxler Construction Co., Inc.
Sedric E. Banks, Monroe, for Appellee.
BROWN, C.J.
Plaintiff, Ray Anding Construction Co. Inc. (“Anding“), was the low bidder for a public works project for construction and renovations at Carver Elementary School in Monroe, Louisiana; however, its bid was rejected by defendant, Monroe City School Board (“MCSB“). Consequently, Anding sought injunctive relief in the district court. Traxler Construction Co. Inc. (“Traxler“), who was awarded the contract,
Factual Background
In early 2003, the Monroe City School Board, in accordance with Louisiana Public Bid Law,
After the written bid proposals were oрened and reviewed by the MCSB, the bid submitted by Anding was not accepted because the bid amount was recited numerically as “$559.372.00.” (use of periods rather thаn commas) and in words as “Five Hundred Fifty Nine Three Hundred Seventy Two Dollars” (omission of the word Thousand). The MCSB‘s attorney informed Anding that its bid was unclear and unaccеptable. Subsequently, Traxler was awarded the contract as the next lowest bidder.1 Traxler then obtained a performance bond at a cost of $5,880. Court action was quickly initiated by Anding, and the matter was heard summarily on June 30, 2003. At this point, no action, aside from Traxler obtaining a performance bоnd, had been taken.
Discussion
Any contract entered into for the construction of public works in violation of the Louisiana Public Bid Law is void.
An injunction shall issue in cases where irreparable injury, loss, or damage may otherwise result to the applicant, or in other cases specifically provided by law....
Fairness lies at the heart of the bidding process and violations of competitive bid requirements should not be sanctioned. Injunctive relief is proper where it is clear that it is the only adequate means of prоtecting the public interest, the integrity of the competitive bidding process, and the rights of the individual bidder.
In Nola Express, L.L.C. v. New Orleans Aviation Board, 02-0662 (La.App. 4th Cir.09/11/02), 826 So.2d 650, writ denied, 02-2774 (La.02/07/03), 836 So.2d 100, a bidder for an airport ground transportation concession contended it was the lowest bidder and sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the aviation board from re-bidding the concession. The appellate court held that where Nola Express alleged that it was the lowest bidder, the re-bidding of
In the instant case, the trial court states that it is “going to grant the injunction and recognize Mr. Anding‘s as the low bid in this particular case.” If Anding was in fact the lowest bidder, awarding the public works contract to Traxler could indeed cause Anding irreparable injury.
The trial court found that Anding was the lowest bidder. The rejection by MCSB of Anding‘s bid was based solely on the ambiguity of the written text of the bid amount and the use of periods rather than commas in the numerical recitation. We agree with the trial court that there was no genuine сontroversy as to the amount of Anding‘s bid. MCSB followed its normal procedure of opening and reading the bids aloud and identifying the apparent low bidder. Thereafter, the bids were reviewed by MCSB officials and their own architect to determine the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for purpоses of actually awarding the contract. When MCSB initially opened and tabulated the bids, it announced that Anding‘s bid was the lowest. At that time, MCSB officials had no рroblem understanding the amount of the bid. Further, MCSB has not asserted that Anding was not a responsible contractor. Because Anding acted swiftly, no constructiоn had started. No evidence was presented by MCSB that a delay would cause a hardship to the school system.
MCSB argues that
A preliminary injunction is an interlocutory procedural device designed to prevent irreparable harm by preserving the status quo between the parties pending a full trial on mеrits.
The principal demand, as opposed to a preliminary injunction, is determined on the merits only after a full trial under ordinary process, evеn though the hearing on the summary proceeding to obtain the injunction may touch upon or tentatively decide issues regarding the merits.
The trial court was not clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous in finding
Additionally, MCSB has objected to the trial court ordering it to indemnify Traxler for the cost of its performance bond. This relief was not sought in this proceeding by intervenor, Traxler, and should not have been granted.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the trial court granting the preliminary injunction is affirmed. This case is remanded to allow determination on the merits regarding the conformity and integrity of the bid. The ruling that MCSB pay Traxler the cost of its performance bond is also reversed. All costs are to be paid as allowed by law by MCSB.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.