Inskip v. Board of Trustees of University of Ill.

• Decision Date: 30 November 1962
• Docket Number: No. 37315,37315
• Citation: Inskip v. Board of Trustees of University of Ill., 187 N.E.2d 201, 26 Ill.2d 501 (Ill. 1962)
• Parties: F. R. INSKIP et al., Appellants, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 201

187 N.E.2d 201

26 Ill.2d 501

F. R. INSKIP et al., Appellants, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, Appellee.

No. 37315.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 30, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1963.

Reno & O'Byrne, Champaign (Donald M. Reno and Vance I. Kepley, Champaign, of counsel), for appellants.

James J. Costello John J. Templin and Warren Glockner, Urbana, and Ralph F. Lesemann, East St. Louis (John S. Rendleman, Carbondale, and Dunn & Dunn, Bloomington, of counsel), for appellee.

UNDERWOOD, Justice.

This cause comes on direct appeal to this court from a judgment of the circuit court of Champaign County interpreting the Illinois Purchasing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 127, pars. 132.1 et seq.) approved July 11, 1957 (Laws of 1957, p. 2890), entitled 'An Act in relation to state purchasing and contracts.' Plaintiffs who are residents and taxpayers of Champaign County, conducting plumbing and heating businesses in Champaign County, Belong to and constitute an unincorporated association known as the Plumbing and Heating Contractors of Champaign County. They filed a petition for declaratory judgment against The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois alleging that the defendant board in the past and since the passage of the Illinois Purchasing Act makes purchases and expends funds for labor and repair, maintenance, remodeling, renovation and construction exceeding $1,500 on and about its property without awarding the same to the lowest responsible bidder on competitive bids, all in violation of the Illinois Purchasing Act. The petition refers specifically to the purchase of air conditioners to provide a refrigerated air conditioning system for the chemistry building on the University of Illinois campus at Urbana and the installation of said air conditioners by using defendant's employees, without first requesting and advertising for bids and without letting the same to the lowest responsible bidder, allegedly in violation of the Illinois Purchasing Act. Defendant filed an answer admitting that 'this defendant, when it considered it to be advantageous and economical to do so, has expended state funds appropriated to it by the General Assembly for labor, for repairs, maintenance, remodeling, renovation and construction work exceeding $1,500 in cost performed by this defendant's own employees on and about its property instead of awarding such work to the lowest responsible bidder upon the basis of competitive bids taken by it therefor; but it denies that this was done in violation of any of the provisions of said Illinois Purchasing Act.'

The pleadings are lengthy and the record voluminous but there is no serious dispute as to the facts, the plaintiffs essentially contending that the defendant board of trustees, admittedly an agency of the State of Illinois, is forbidden by the provisions of the Illinois Purchasing Act to break down a job or project into parts or sections, each of which involves not to exceed $1,500, and proceed to complete the same with its own labor, and the defendant contending that this practice is not prohibited by the terms of the act. Plaintiffs contend that the cost of the labor of permanent employees must be added to the proposed job or project in determining the cost and that defendant has no option or discretion not to have the same performed by contract let upon prescribed bidding practices where the total cost including labor, materials, supplies, commodities and equipment exceeds $1,500. Defendant by its answer admitted that it plans and intends to continue to do repair, maintenance, remodeling, renovation and construction work in and about its buildings involving expenditure of State funds in excess of $1,500 with its own employees without advertising for bids for such work and without letting such work to a contractor submitting the lowest responsible bid 'when this defendant finds that it is more advantageous and economical to perform such work with its own employees than it would be to left such work to a contractor upon the basis of competitive bidding therefor', and defendant denies that this will violate either the spirit or the letter of the act or any provision thereof.

The petition for declaratory judgment was filed pursuant to section 57.1 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 110, par. 57.1), and the direct appeal to this court is predicated upon the provisions of section 75 of the Civil Practice Act which provides that appeals shall be taken directly to this Court 'in all cases * * * in which the State is interested as a party or otherwise'. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 110, par. 75.) The sole defendant is the University of Illinois sued by its correct name 'The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois' which we have heretofore held is a corporation, separate and distinct from the State and no part of the State or State government (People ex rel. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Barrett, 382 Ill. 321, 342, 46 N.E.2d 951), but which is included within the definition of a 'State agency' in the legislation here pertinent, since it expends or encumbers State funds 'by virtue of an annual or biennial appropriation from the General Assembly'. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 127, par. 132.3.) We hold that we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal since the State has a direct and substantial interest of a monetary character. Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 110, par. 75(1)(b); Illinois Public Aid Com. v. Massie, 13 Ill.2d 498, 150 N.E.2d 154; Smith v. Hodge, 13 Ill.2d 197, 148 N.E.2d 793; People ex rel. Moffett v. Turnbull, 256 Ill. 532, 100 N.E. 221; Retail Liquor Dealers Protective Ass'n v. Fleck, 406 Ill. 24, 92 N.E.2d 156; People v. Schallerer, 12 Ill.2d 240, 145 N.E.2d 585, 146 N.E.2d 193, 73 A.L.R.2d 150.

The title of the Illinois Purchasing Act is 'An Act in relation to state purchasing and contracts' approved July 11, 1957. Section 2 of the act provides:

'It is the purpose of this Act and is hereby declared to be the policy of the state that the principle of competitive bidding and economical procurement practices shall be applicable to all purchases and contracts for which state funds are expended.'

Section 5 provides in part that:

'All purchases, contracts or other obligation or expenditures of funds by any State agency shall be in accordance with rules and regulations governing such State agency procurement practices and procedures which it shall promulgate and publish in sufficient number for distribution to personal interested in bidding on purchases or contracts to be let by such State agency.'

The relevant provisions of section 6, as they existed in 1959, are as follows:

'The rules and regulations required by Section 5 of this Act shall provide, among other matters which are not in conflict with the polices and principles herein set forth:

'a. That all purchases, contracts and expenditure of funds shall be awarded to the lower responsible bidder considering conformity with specifications, terms of delivery, quality and service-ability; except that bidding shall not be required in the following cases:

'(1) Where the goods or services to be procured are economically procurable from only one source, such as contracts for telephone service, electrical energy, and other public utility services, books, pamphlets and periodicals, and specially designed business equipment;

'(2) Where the services required are for professional, technical or artistic skills;

'(3) In emergencies; provided that where funds are expended in an emergency by purchase, contract or otherwise, an affidavit of the person or persons authorizing the expenditure shall be filed with the Auditor General of the State of Illinois within 10 days after the purchase or contract setting forth the conditions and circumstances requiring the emergency purchase;

'(4) In case of expenditures for personal services payable from an appropriation for personal services;

'(5) Contracts for repairs, maintenance, remodeling, renovation, or construction, involving an expenditure not to exceed $1,500; * * *

'a-1. In case of contracts for the construction of buildings, or for other construction work in or about buildings and grounds, when the entire estimated cost of such work exceeds $25,000, separate specifications must be prepared for all equipment, labor and materials in connection with the following four subdivisions of the work to be performed:

'1. Plumbing.

'2. Heating, piping, refrigeration and automatic temperature control systems.

'3. Ventilating and distribution systems for conditioned air.

'4. Electric wiring.

'Such specifications must be so drawn as to permit separate and independent bidding upon each of the above four subdivisions of work. All contracts hereinafter awarded for any part thereof, shall award the four subdivisions of the above specified work separately to responsible and reliable persons, firms or corporations engaged in these classes of work. Such contracts, at the discretion of the awarding authority, may be assigned to the successful bidder on the general contract work, with the provision that all payments will be made directly to the contractors for the four above specified subdivisions upon compliance with the conditions of the contract. A contract may be let for one or more buildings in any project to the same contractor. The specifications shall require, however, that unless the buildings are identical, a separate price shall be submitted for each building; the contract may be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each or all of the buildings included in the specifications.'

Section 10 provides:

'Any contract entered into or purchase or expenditure of State funds made in violation of this Act or the rules and regulations adopted in pursuance of this Act is void and of no effect.'

The trial court found by its judgment that the basic issue was whether the provisions of the Illinois Purchasing Act...