DocketNumber: No. 70 53 73
Judges: BERGER, J.
Filed Date: 10/28/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The plaintiff C.J. Picard Corporation (hereinafter, "Picard") has brought the instant action seeking to enjoin the renovation of a building owned by the Hartford Dispensary Real Estate Inc. located at 19 Rockwell Avenue, New Britain, Connecticut, alleging that the bidding procedure involved corruption and favoritism. The plaintiff, an unsuccessful bidder, has sued the Hartford Dispensary (hereinafter, "the Dispensary"), a private 501c3 non profit corporation which intends to utilize the CT Page 10234 building as a methadone clinic, its director, Paul McLaughlin, and the successful bidder, New Brite Plumbing Piping Inc.
[a] bid, even the lowest responsible one, submitted in response to an invitation for bids is only an offer which, until accepted by the municipality, does not give rise to a contract between the parties. John J. Brennan Construction Corporation, Inc. v. Shelton,
187 Conn. 695 ,702 (1982), citing Joseph Rugo, Inc. v. Henson,190 F. Sup. 281 (D. Conn. 1960); (remaining citations omitted). An unsuccessful bidder, therefore, has no legal or equitable right in the contract. Not unlike any other person whose offer has been rejected, the disappointed bidder has no right to judicial intervention.
Ardmare Construction Co. v. Freedman,
Paul McLaughlin testified that he spoke with Senator Joseph Harper in April 1994 to obtain names of local contractors who might be interested in bidding the job. Senator Harper testified that he gave him the names of three contractors together with a description of their work. One of the three names was the defendant New Brite. Mr. McLaughlin independently called two contractors, a Peter Knaus and Diversified General Contractors.
As a result of some complications, including litigation with the City of New Britain, the project was delayed for a period of time. On August 2, 1994, an on site inspection was held with representatives from three prospective bidders: the plaintiff, C. J. Picard, Diversified General Contractors, and Colossale Concrete, Inc. As a result of the architect's dialing an incorrect telephone number, New Brite did not get notice of the inspection and was thus given the opportunity to inspect the next day. The bids were to contain separate cost breakdowns for the site work and the building renovation. They were submitted on August 12, 1994.
After opening the bids, Mr. McLaughlin called in the lowest bidders, C. J. Picard and New Brite for separate meetings. New Brite had submitted the lowest site work bid and Picard had submitted the lowest renovation bid (although when scrutinized more carefully, the site work bids were essentially the same). Mr. McLaughlin and his architect Jeff Baily had a number of follow up conversations with the two bidders and Mr. Baily actually changed each bid by eliminating or substituting a number of items. New Brite submitted a further revision in which its final bid was $20,000.00 more than that of C. J. Picard. The Hartford Dispensary ultimately awarded the contract to New Brite. As stated by Mr. McLaughlin, Picard was not chosen because Picard would not agree to performing just the renovation work, it would not agree to the proposed payment schedule, its bid contained a longer completion schedule (albeit by only 10 days) and finally, because Mr. McLaughlin felt uncomfortable about Picard's attitude. CT Page 10236
The plaintiff conceded that there is nothing wrong with Senator Harper recommending contractors. In his conversation with Mr. McLaughlin, he provided brief descriptions about each one. While there is certainly a connection between New Brite's owner son and Senator Harper, there was no testimony, other than the mere connection, that would suggest that any influence was brought to bear. Mr. McLaughlin only had one conversation with Mr. Harper and that was early April 1994. Admittedly, Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Baily had a number of contacts with both the plaintiff and New Brite after the bid openings, but it is clear the Dispensary was honestly trying to reduce the cost of the project.
Every contract for construction, reconstruction, remodeling, repair or demolition by a grant recipient using State Bond funds shall be awarded to the lowest responsible and qualified bidder on the basis of competitive bids. The lowest CT Page 10237 responsible and qualified bidder is the bidder whose bid is the lowest received and who possesses the skill, ability and integrity necessary to perform the work based on past performance and financial responsibility.
Competitive bids should be sought through advertisement of the work specifications in a newspaper having substantial circulation in the area.
If, following advertisement in the newspaper, a change is made to the specifications, the amended specifications should be readvertised to allow all potential bidders an opportunity to bid.
Evidence of this doctrine was introduced for both the 1993 and 1994 calendar years. The Dispensary argues that this policy is not applicable because (1) it was never made known to the Dispensary, (2) OPM exceeded its authority in issuing this policy and (3) assuming it had the authority, it never promulgated the policy in compliance with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, General Statutes, [§]
There seems to be no question that the policy was intended to be an inter agency memorandum applying to all state agencies. Nevertheless, the testimony indicated that the Dispensary applied for and was awarded the loan pursuant to forms, directives and procedures of the Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission — none of which contained the requirements in the policy memorandum. The specific question of the validity of the memorandum is not before this court and need not be addressed. This court, notes, however, that it certainly highlights the need for proper promulgation if the policy is intended to be a statement of general applicability. General Statutes §
Finally, it is established law that where a regulation or statute states that the contract be awarded to the "lowest responsible bidder," the awarding authority has discretion to incorporate other factors besides lowest price in its determination. Vellaco v. Derby,
Moreover, in deciding whether to issue injunctive relief, courts of equity have been required to balance the relative hardships, inconvenience and injuries to the respective parties, Sisters of St. Joseph Corp. v. AtlasSand G S Co.,
Berger, J.