Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., No. 18525.
Decision Date | 17 January 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 18525. |
Citation | 2012 Trade Cases P 77768,35 A.3d 188,192 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2954,303 Conn. 402 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Steven B. Kaplan, with whom was Paul R. Fitzgerald, Hartford, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Darren P. Cunningham, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).
Frank G. Usseglio, Hartford, and John T. Fussell, East Hartford, with whom were Karen K. Clark and Glenn A. Duhl, and, on the brief, Robert M. Cheverie and Gary F. Sheldon, Hartford, for the appellees (defendant city of Hartford et al.).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH and HARPER, Js.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the nonunion plaintiffs, Electrical Contractors, Inc. (ECI), and six of its individual employees,1 have standing to challenge prebid specifications requiring the successful bidder on two state financed school construction projects 2 in the city of Hartford to perform all project work with union labor under the terms of a project labor agreement (PLA). The plaintiffs claim that the trial court incorrectly concluded that (1) ECI lacked standing, pursuant to this court's decision in Connecticut Associated Builders & Contractors v. Hartford, 251 Conn. 169, 740 A.2d 813 (1999) ( Associated Builders & Contractors), to challenge the PLA requirement and the rejection of its lowest, responsible, qualified bids on the two construction projects after ECI refused to sign and be bound by the mandatory PLA, (2) the PLA requirement did not violate the applicable competitive bidding laws, General Statutes §§ 4a–100, 4b–91, 4b–92 [303 Conn. 406] and 10–287, (3) the individual plaintiffs did not have standing under article first, §§ 1, 4, 5 and 20, of the Connecticut constitution to challenge the PLA requirement, and (4) ECI did not have standing to prosecute its claim that the PLA requirement was in violation of the Connecticut Antitrust Act, General Statutes § 35–24 et seq. The defendants, the city of Hartford (city), Morganti Group, Inc., Downes Construction Company, LLC, Custom Electric, Inc.,3 the state department of education (department), and Mark K. McQuillan, the commissioner of education,4 who allegedly approved the challenged contracts on behalf of the state,5 disagree with the plaintiffs and raise two alternative grounds for affirmance, namely, that the plaintiffs' claims are (1) preempted by federal labor law, and (2) barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 6 We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.
The following relevant facts are set forth in the trial court's memorandum of decision. “A PLA is a prehire collective bargaining agreement which requires all contractors and subcontractors on a construction project to comply with the terms of all existing collective bargaining agreements with unions representing workers from the trades performing work on the project and requires all project workers to join the unions for their respective trades, to remain members in good standing of such unions, and not to strike while the project is under construction.7 The PLAs ... at issue share these essential features, although they set aside 15 percent of all work on each project for minority-owned ... and/or women-owned ... business enterprises, which are not bound by the PLAs.8 ...
“In their complaint, the plaintiffs [sought] several types of declaratory, injunctive and other extraordinary relief 9 in connection with the projects ... at issue based upon the common underlying claim that the city's imposition of mandatory PLAs upon successful bidders on those and similar state-financed construction projects is illegal....
“After this case was filed in court, the defendants successfully petitioned for its removal to the United States District Court [for the District of Connecticut] so that [the] federal constitutional claims ... could be adjudicated in a federal forum. 11 At the conclusion of oral argument, Judge Underhill dismissed all of the plaintiffs' federal claims, declined to exercise jurisdiction over their pendent state claims, and ordered that the case be remanded to court for further proceedings. Left undecided in this process, with the express intention that court should decide them on remand, were the defendants' jurisdictional challenges to the plaintiffs' state law claims.
“The defendants, in their motions [to dismiss] ... challenged court's subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims on three separate grounds.
Following the hearing, the trial court agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded that ECI had failed to make a colorable claim that the PLA requirement effectuated fraud, corruption, favoritism or otherwise undermined the objective or integrity of the competitive bidding process under the common-law principles articulated in Associated Builders & Contractors. The court also concluded that the individual plaintiffs did not have standing because they were not prequalified electrical contractors and had “neither bid on either project nor could have done so....” Accordingly, the trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without reaching or deciding the alternative grounds advanced in support of their motions. Thereafter, the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's judgment, and the appeal was transferred to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51–199(c) and Practice Book § 65–2.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) May v. Coffey, 291 Conn. 106, 112, 967 A.2d 495 (2009).
In the context of competitive bidding, it is well established that an unsuccessful bidder on a state or municipal contract has no contractual right under the common law that would afford standing to challenge the award of a contract. Connecticut Associated Builders & Contractors v. Hartford, supra, 251 Conn. at 178, 740 A.2d 813. “[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.... An unsuccessful bidder, therefore, has no legal or equitable right in the contract. Not unlike any other person whose...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Elijah C.
... ... v. Dept. of Public Utility Control , 266 Conn. 108, 120, ... quotation marks omitted.) Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dept. of Education , 303 Conn. 402, ... ...
-
Conn. Coal. for Justice in Educ. Funding, Inc. v. Rell
... ... interests." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dept. of Education , 303 Conn. 402, 411, 35 A.3d 188 (2012) ... ...
-
State v. Jose A. B.
... ... for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., as amicus curiae. Robinson, C. J., and ... facts of [the] case"); Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dept. of Education , 303 Conn. 402, ... ...
-
Kortner v. Martise
... ... filed a brief for Connecticut Legal Services, Inc., as amicus curiae. Daniel J. Klau, Hartford, ... quotation marks omitted.) Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dept. of Education, 303 Conn. 402, 411, ... ...
-
Connecticut. Practice Text
...by the legislature, not this court.” Cheryl Terry Enters. , 854 A.2d at 1074. See also Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Dept. of Educ. , 35 A.3d 188, 216-18, 192 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2954, 2012-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 77768 (2012) (“[A]n unsuccessful bidder . . . has the statutory right to bring an a......
-
2012 Connecticut Appellate Review
...[41] 304 Conn. 426, 40 A.3d 279 (2012). [42] 306 Conn. 438, 51 A.3d 334 (2012). [43] Id. at 460-71 (Zarella, J., dissenting). [44] 303 Conn. 402, 35 A.3d 188 (2012). [45] 306 Conn. 1, 48 A.3d 652 (2012). [46] 303 Conn. 569, 34 A.3d 975 (2012). [47] 303 Conn. 538, 34 A.3d 370 (2012). [48] 30......