K&L Gates Construction Law Blog

Court overturns City Rejection of Low Bidder based on alleged lack of Necessary Experience

Hillside Landscape Constr. Inc. v. City of Lewiston 151 Idaho 749, 264 P.3d 388 (2011)

The City of Lewiston received multiple bids on a public works project.  It rejected the low bidder’s offer on the ground that the low bidder lacked sufficient experience for the project.  The low bidder brought an action against the City for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages.  The district court dismissed the complaint, and the low bidder appealed.

The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed, concluding that the City could not reject the bid on the ground of lack of experience because the City elected to follow Category A bid procedures.  Under Category A, the City “may only consider the amount of the bid, bidder compliance with administrative requirements of the bidding process, and whether the bidder holds the requisite license.”  Id. § 67-2805(3).  The City “shall award the bid to the qualified bidder submitting the lowest responsive bid.”  Id.  Under Category B the city may consider other factors, such as sufficient work experience and other prequalification standards.  Id. at 67-2805(3)(b)(i).

In this case, the contractor applied under Category A, and the city added further requirements, such as previous work experience and other prequalification standards from Category B.  The Supreme Court held that “adding any further requirements, either before or after inviting the bids, required the city to proceed under Category B.”  The Court concluded that because the City had followed the Category A procedures, it could not reject the low bidder on the ground of insufficient work experience.  This case demonstrates that once a city elects to use one Category, it cannot evaluate a bid using procedures from the other Category.  Under Category A, a “lowest responsible bidder” analysis must occur before, not after, the project is open for bidding.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.klconstructionlawblog.com/admin/trackback/270838
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
This blog/Web site is made available by the contributing lawyers or law firm publisher solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general legal principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. By using this blog/Web site, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship intended or formed between you and the blog/Web site publisher or any contributing lawyer. The blog/Web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

K&L Gates practices out of 48 fully integrated offices located in the United States, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East and South America and represents leading global corporations, growth and middle-market companies, capital markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations, practices and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.

Portions of this Web site may contain Attorney Advertising under the rules of some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
K&L Gates LLP
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington 98104-1158
p. 206.623.7580, f. 206.623.7022