Motorola, Inc. v. Adams

FINIALAS; LF FACT ANA G'A AM MAN; ry gU'F

yé LA, i1 ! Al ’’ : Ai'Age.

''’VR¡R >,. '".L'.j,■- 'VW' ec íW f wring se r '(L'jv.ij m 'i y i'.'*,",;,. A.ijfr; fA 'do.; «!'< 1'lay Ib. '.A1'',''. ML.."1 ib . lLL'.j¿:ible A. Andrew A?,Ag, GoiAA Ai;,,b,-r. Bistre!, Judge,-and the Court Firm; w-'uAbxod She -.Leadings and w -i.r¡:í w'2-,! n)n¡; by ;AwmíilT, and tro ora) ri-gAmc-L oí romsol ai, fho hearing, makes Lie fon*» v'hk RwAü?;:: oí FaF, and Conclu-;;Aís:. id Lew

A . ■ A■:," , ■ 'A AL

I

A- A i* AT'' ;k*i-{,hnrn CteJiíoi»í& Lged nii.'i. AlFAL (AAIRTA) solicited 'jídi: ■<»' iw.» w*y lu'di.i vcríiriMri'i¡&tii>r! system wb r 'l/itcd equipr'erf!. for its buses. Á porfío^ cí' the: soul of Lie c.’idio communication system was ft.- lie paid by Urban Mass Tew. 'Sf't Awn /:f!.i.d.,iA;j.s':;.fin?j (1JMTA) I.-IÍL ",m j .!f :o ;(li !¡, <\,,n„ :K:t.

A

Ala tí.A L-buiíi.irv., dei'eadani. Gene-M r'Áxi a Cinúi.vny ÍÁE) being the Mwosf FLAr ;.A ijAirfiii Motorola, Jnc., boíig f tm• svArei bidder An December 22, 'lAVA, 'be Liw.j.i e! llívíol <.? PiCETU AwiA sir, A i'.AI .osgor-sivo and awarded the ,;.-,ruj ..a GF„ by letter dated Juaw:»;/ 21, JAY*/, AlMAA approved the GE Mb AowwAu? ly, GF begne work on the radio oiunmunrealiou system in January A'OY,, ■•m'. Ads ¡iffie baa completed a .••jgnrfjs:ri.i"5'i <n *.(»«? work.

A;

’ ’ ' A' ■ . I.'-'J, !• «• -r ii,G-;i, Ag 197b» Mofo-' .•7 j¡ ,L"UA-A fe ''Ate a,ward of Aw 4\\\,> : '■«! A LF. An durtmiy 2»., :977 'iM'IG.1 >iAwfed IF- biri potest Ay f-'H/'v d;A A i ,,■(>.'f5 A jrAAg MAaorofa filed a bid protest with the General Accounting Office, which expects to render a decision by .inly 1977.

IV

The portion of the GE bid previously marked Lade secrets and not made public, « made public by May 12, 1977.

V

if ¡ay conclusion of law deemed to be a finding of fact is hereby incorporated into ¡■haw Findings of Fact.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

'I

Plaintiff, Motorola, Inc., did not establish the requisite elements for a temporary restraining; order.

II

Motorola failed to show any irreparable fo>tm to itself, especially in view of i V delay '» bringing this action since January LAY when it was first notified that UMTA had approved the GE bid and had denied the Motorola bid protest. Additionally, plaintiff failed to show lack of adequate remedy at law. In -fact, in the conté?,!, of an action for damages, the Court would Live », better opportunity than in a hcas-bp; for a temporary restraining* order to carefully consider the complex issues raised by the pleadings herein. (See Steinthal v. Seamans, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 221, 455 F.2d 1289, 1971.)

III

Motorola failed to show a likelihood of auwjsa on the merits. Having submitted the highest bid of the four bids. Motorola cannot show that the contract would have necessarily been-awarded to it, as opposed in Mo other bidders, even if it were successful In proving that the award of the con-u’w-í. A! GE was improper. In any event, it Ujjuvur, from what has been presented to Uw Cf.uit so far that defendants complied with UMTA and state regulations in accepting the GE bid which disclosed price, quantify nr.d delivery.

IV

In balancing the equities the Court finds the plaintiff will not suffer irreparable injury if the temporary restraining order is denied. However, defendants including GE which has worked on the radios since January, will be harmed by a temporary restraining order. Furthermore, the public interest clearly dictates the necessity for proceeding with the two-way radio communication system and with expending money for public transit as approved by the agencies involved. There will be irreparable harm to the public in delaying the installation of two-way radios needed to protect the public, including protection against attacks by marauding thieves, robbers and muggers on public buses.

V

Lastly, the Court has also considered the fact that plaintiff Motorola, the disappointed bidder, has an administrative protest pending before the General Accounting Office which has the expertise required for evaluation of bid protests and whose advisory decision may be of guidance to the Court. See Wheelabrator v. Chafee, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 238, 455 F.2d 1306 (1971.)

VI

Any finding of fact deemed to. be a conclusion of law is hereby incorporated into these Conclusions of Law.

Let Judgment be entered accordingly.