Paterson Contracting Co. v. City of Hackensack

• Decision Date: 19 November 1923
• Docket Number: No. 67.,67.
• Citation: 122 A. 741
• Parties: PATERSON CONTRACTING CO. v. CITY OF HACKENSACK et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

122 A. 741

PATERSON CONTRACTING CO.

v. CITY OF HACKENSACK et al.

No. 67.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 19, 1923.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceeding by the Paterson Contracting Company against the City of Hackensack and others for a writ of certiorari. From an order dismissing the writ, prosecutor appeals. Reversed.

Randal B. Lewis, of Paterson, for appellant.

Wendell J. Wright, of Hackensack, for respondent.

KATZENBACH, J. This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court dismissing a writ of certiorari.

The Hackensack Improvement Commission, the governing body of the city of Hackensack, advertised for proposals for the construction under one contract of certain sewers. The commission requested that proposals be submitted at a meeting to be held on October 16, 1922. On that day, at the hour and place designated, bidders for the work submitted their proposals. The lowest bid was presented by the Paterson Contracting Company (hereafter referred to as the company). The amount of its bid was $140,382.70. The next lowest bidder was G. Di Napoli & Co. whose bid was $141,579.75. On November 6, 1922, the commission awarded the contract to G. Di Napoli & Co. Before this award was made, the commission passed a resolution stating that to their judgment the Paterson Contracting Company was not a responsible bidder, and had not demonstrated that it had sufficient experience in the character of work involved, sufficient capital or financial backing to properly finance the work, and proper office facilities, including quick means for communication, to properly execute the work, and for these reasons its bid should be rejected. It was true that the company had not demonstrated its abilities in the matters referred to in the resolution, but the commission had never afforded it an opportunity to do so. The bid of the company was rejected without a hearing.

The law governing the award of a contract of this character is found in section 1, art. 11, of chapter 152, P. L. 1917, p. 347, which reads as follows:

"No municipality shall enter into any contract for the doing of any work or for the furnishing of any materials, supplies or labor, the hiring of teams or vehicles, where the sum to be expended exceeds the sum of five hundred dollars, unless the governing body shall first publicly advertise for bids therefor, and shall award the said contract for the doing of said work or the furnishing of such materials, supplies or labor to the lowest responsible bidder; provided, this section shall not prevent any municipality having any work done by its own employees."

The commission could not do as it did without according to the lowest bidder an opportunity to show its responsibility if challenged. Kelly v. Freeholders, 90 N. J. Law, 411, 101 Atl. 422. After the award had been made, the company made application to a Justice of the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the commission. The writ was allowed, and subsequently the case was argued before the same Justice who had allowed the writ, sitting alone, pursuant to the statute. He decided that the award to G. Di Napoli & Co. should be set aside because no hearing had been afforded the lowest bidder as to its responsibility. Thereupon the commission caused the company to be notified that it would be given a hearing as to whether or not it was a responsible bidder in the following respects: (1) Experience in the performance of the character of work required, (2) necessary machinery, (3; financial ability, (4) facilities necessary for the performance of the work, and (5) necessary equipment. On the day fixed for the hearing, January 22, 1923, the company appeared by counsel and assumed the burden of proving that it was a responsible bidder. Mr. Maggi, the president of the company, testified that he had had for 8 years experience in sewer work, acting as superintendent or assistant superintendent of sewer construction; that he had done trunk sewer work and deep sewer work; that he or his company had constructed some 12 sewers for the city of Paterson. He presented a letter admitted without objection) from the city engineer of Paterson to the effect that the work of the company had been entirely satisfactory, and that in his opinion the company could handle any sewer work satisfactorily. He also presented a letter to the same effect from the county engineer of Passaic county....