Leslie Miller v. State of Arkansas

• Decision Date: 17 December 1956
• Docket Number: No. 51,51
• Citation: 352 U.S. 187,77 S.Ct. 257,1 L.Ed.2d 231
• Parties: LESLIE MILLER, Inc., Appellant, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

352 U.S. 187

77 S.Ct. 257

1 L.Ed.2d 231

LESLIE MILLER, Inc., Appellant,

v STATE OF ARKANSAS.

No. 51.

Argued Dec. 5, 6, 1956.

Decided Dec. 17, 1956.

Mr. Leffel Gentry, Little Rock, Ark., for the appellant.

Mr. William J. Smith, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.

Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant submitted a bid in May 1954 for construction of facilities at an Air Force Base in Arkansas over which the United States had not acquired jurisdiction pursuant to 54 Stat. 19, 40 U.S.C. § 255, 40 U.S.C.A. § 255. The United States accepted appellant's bid, and in June appellant began work on the project. In September, the State of Arkansas filed an information accusing appellant of violation of Ark.Stat., 1947, §§ 71—701 through 71—721, for submitting a bid, executing a contract, and commencing work as a contractor in the State of Arkansas without having obtained a license under Arkansas law for such activity from its Contractors Licensing Board. The case was tried on stipulated facts. Appellant was found guilty and fined. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, 225 Ark. 285, 281 S.W.2d 946 [Fastcase Editorial Note: The Court's reference to 225 Ark. 285, 281 S.W.2d 946 is short for Leslie Miller, Inc. v. State, 225 Ark. 285, 281 S.W.2d 946.], and the case came here on appeal. 351 U.S. 948, 76 S.Ct. 845. Appellant and the United States as amicus curiae contend that the application of the Arkansas statute to this contractor interferes with the Federal Government's power to select contractors and schedule construction and is in conflict with the federal law regulating procurement.

Congress provided in § 3 of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947, 62 Stat. 21, 23, 41 U.S.C. § 152, 41 U.S.C.A. § 152, that awards on advertised bids 'shall be made * * * to that responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered * * *.' The report from the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives indicated some of the factors to be considered: 'The question whether a particular bidder is a 'responsible bidder' requires sound business judgment, and involves an evaluation of the bidder's experience, facilities, technical organization, reputation, financial resources, and other factors.' H.R.Rep.No.109, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 18; see S.Rep.No.571, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 16. The Armed Services Procurement Regulations promulgated under the Act, set forth a list of guiding considerations, defining a responsible contractor as one who

'(a) Is a manufacturer, construction contractor, or regular dealer. * * *

'(b) Has adequate financial resources, or ability to secure such resources;

'(c) Has the necessary experience, organization, and technical qualifications, and has or can acquire the necessary facilities (including probable subcontractor arrangements) to perform the proposed contract;

'(d) Is able to comply with the required delivery or performance schedule (taking into consideration all existing business commitments);

'(e) Has a satisfactory record of performance, integrity, judgment, and skills; and

'(f) Is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.' 32 CFR § 1.307; see also 32 CFR § 2.406—3.

Under the Arkansas licensing law similar factors are set forth to guide the Contractors Licensing Board:

'The Board, in determining the qualifications of any applicant for...