Bristol Steel and Iron Works, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development
| Decision Date | 04 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 504 So.2d 941 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | BRISTOL STEEL AND IRON WORKS, INC. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT and Traylor Brothers, Inc. & Williams Brothers Construction Company, Inc. (a Joint Venture). 86 0199. |
Paul G. Pastorek, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant Bristol Steel and Iron Works, Inc.
William J. Doran, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee State of Louisiana, Dept. of Transp. and Development.
Robert E. Winn, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee Traylor Bros., Inc. and Williams Bros. Const. Co., Inc. (A Joint Venture).
Before GROVER L. COVINGTON, C.J., and LANIER and ALFORD, JJ.
This action commenced as a suit for preliminary and permanent injunctions by a nonresident low bidder on a public works contract alleging that the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) unlawfully awarded a public contract to the second low bidder under the resident contractor preference provision of the Louisiana Public Contracts Law. Subsequently, the nonresident low bidder filed a supplemental and amending petition seeking (in addition to injunctive relief) a declaratory judgment that (1) it was the lowest responsible bidder and (2) the DOTD illegally awarded the contract to the second low bidder and that the contract awarded was null and void. The case went to trial on the merits of the request for a permanent injunction and the petition for declaratory relief. The trial court took the case under advisement and subsequently rendered judgment dismissing the claims of the nonresident low bidder with prejudice. This devolutive appeal followed. DOTD and the second lowest bidder filed motions to dismiss the appeal as moot.
On November 16, 1984, DOTD advertised for bids for the construction of the superstructure of the Mississippi River Bridge at Gramercy (the Project).
On November 21, 1984, Richard McCallum of Bristol Steel and Iron Works, Inc. (Bristol) telephoned the DOTD office in Baton Rouge and spoke to Dempsey White, DOTD's chief engineer, about the Louisiana reciprocal bid preference law referred to in the Project's notice to bidders. Bristol was domiciled in the State of Virginia. White advised McCallum that preference was given only if Bristol's home state of Virginia gave resident contractor preference. Virginia law did not have such a preference.
On November 28, 1984, five bids were received and opened by DOTD:
1. Bristol Steel and Iron Works, Inc. $43,678,235.89
2. Traylor Brothers, Inc. & Williams
Brothers Const. Co., Inc. (A Joint
Venture) 43,767,690.00
3. T.L. James & Co., Inc. & Boh
Brothers Const. Co., Inc. (A Joint
Venture) 43,808,980.05
4. Pittsburgh-Des Moines, Inc. 47,603,810.89
5. Harris Structural Steel Co., Inc. 47,653,295.89
The second lowest bidder, Traylor & Williams, was a joint venture formed on the day that it submitted its bid, November 28, 1984. Traylor & Williams were equal partners. Traylor acted as managing partner for the Project. On November 28, 1984, Traylor was an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Evansville, Indiana. Williams was a Texas corporation having its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.
On November 30, 1984, The M/V Cargill MacMillian collided with the substructure of the Mississippi River Bridge at Gramercy. After this, DOTD was uncertain of the status of the Project. DOTD was concerned that this accident could cause a delay in the Project and the Project might have to be rebid at a later day. Also, on that date, Bristol contacted Tom Payment of the DOTD about awarding the contract. Payment informed the representative of Bristol that it might not be awarded the contract because of the five percent preference rule in favor of Louisiana resident contractors. La.R.S. 38:2225(A). However, the DOTD was awaiting the decision of the Attorney General's Office on this matter.
On December 6, 1984, DOTD decided to delay awarding the Project contract indefinitely until it learned how badly the November 30th collision had damaged the substructure.
W.P. Wray, Jr., counsel for Traylor & Williams, wrote a letter dated December 7, 1984, to DOTD's secretary, Robert Graves. In the letter, Wray stated that the contract should not be rebid and the preference law should be construed in favor of his clients. Additionally, Wray asked the DOTD's secretary to meet with him to discuss these matters.
On December 27, 1984, the substructure contractor, Traylor Brothers, met with DOTD personnel to discuss the extent and severity of the damage caused by the November 30th collision.
On January 2, 1985, McCallum of Bristol again telephoned DOTD's White. White advised McCallum that the job would either be awarded to Bristol or Traylor & Williams, or would be rebid.
On January 9, 1985, Traylor & Williams met with DOTD's secretary to discuss the status of the award of the superstructure contract. Two days after the meeting on January 11, 1985, the contract was awarded to Traylor & Williams. The order to commence work was issued by DOTD to Traylor & Williams effective January 14, 1985.
Bristol learned of the award to Traylor & Williams on January 14, 1985. This was not confirmed in writing to Bristol until January 22, 1985. Bristol then requested an explanation from the DOTD.
On three separate occasions, Bristol sent letters to DOTD protesting the award of the contract to Traylor & Williams and seeking a hearing. On March 22, 1985, in a letter addressed to Bristol's President, Otis Hart, DOTD's secretary, Graves, denied that Bristol had any right to a hearing on this matter.
This suit was filed on March 29, 1985.
DOTD has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot contending "the project is now 61% percent complete as can be seen from the affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit C" and that "appellant's attempt to obtain injunctive relief is now moot because of the execution and performance of the contract." Traylor & Williams has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot contending an attached affidavit shows "the public works contract at issue in this appeal is now [September 29, 1986] more than sixty-five (65%) percent complete", Bristol has not requested monetary relief, and to now decide this case "would be an abstract proposition from which no practical result could follow."
A suit is moot when the rendition of a judgment for the relief requested can have no practical legal effect upon the issue in controversy. A court should not rule on a moot issue because such a ruling would serve no useful purpose. Robin v. Concerned Citizens For Better Education in St. Bernard, Inc., 384 So.2d 405 (La.1980); State in the Interest of a Minor Female Child, 470 So.2d 595 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985); Board of Regents, State of Louisiana v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities, 460 So.2d 80 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984).
In its amended prayer, Bristol sought the following relief: (1) a declaratory judgment that (a) it was the lowest responsible bidder and (b) DOTD awarded the contract to Traylor & Williams illegally, and, thus, the contract was null and void, and (2) a permanent injunction (a) enjoining DOTD "from proceeding with all further construction or the purchase of material for construction ... or any work for the Gramercy bridge superstructure included in said Project" and (b) enjoining DOTD "from rejecting the bids submitted on November 28, 1984 ... and from advertising or readvertising for new or alternative bids for said project and for the construction of the superstructure for ..." the Project. [Emphasis added.]
Any contract entered into for the construction of a public work which is contrary to the provisions of La.R.S. 38:2211 through 38:2225 shall be null and void. La.R.S. 38:2220(A). In all public construction contracts not subject to arbitration, each party to such contract is entitled to judicial review for redress for any action, determination or interpretation with respect to such contract. La.R.S. 38:2217. Cf. La. Const. of 1974, art. I, § 22. When a low bid is illegally rejected and the public works contract is awarded to another bidder, the low bidder may seek an injunction against the public entity entering into a contract with the other bidder and/or may seek the annulment of the contract awarded to the other bidder. Haughton Elevator Division v. State, Division of Administration, 367 So.2d 1161 (La.1979). The low bidder may file a suit for damages against the public body for failure to comply with the Louisiana Public Contracts Law. Haughton Elevator Division, 367 So.2d at 1169, nn. 8 & 9; North Central Utilities, Inc. v. Walker Community Water System, Inc., 437 So.2d 922 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1983). If the rights of the low bidder are affected by a statute (such as the Louisiana Public Contracts Law), he may seek a declaratory judgment to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the statute and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder. La.C.C.P. art. 1872.
The fact that a party does not couple a claim for damages with a petition for declaratory relief does not invalidate the petition for declaratory relief or bar a subsequent action for damages. In Blaise Parking and Enterprises Corporation v. Project Square 221, 409 So.2d 691 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982), the plaintiff (Blaise) obtained a final declaratory judgment that the defendant (Project) violated the terms of a lease agreement between the parties. Thereafter, Blaise filed suit against Project for the damages caused by this past contractual breach. In a peremptory exception pleading the objection of no cause of action, Project contended Blaise was not entitled to damages for...
To continue reading
Request your trial