Title: State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1844.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-1844 
THE STATE EX REL. GAYLOR, INC. v. GOODENOW, DIR., ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1844.] 
Mandamus — Respondents abused discretion in rejecting construction bid — Writ 
of mandamus granted ordering respondents to reinstate and reevaluate 
relator’s bid. 
(No. 2010-0330 — Submitted April 23, 2010 — Decided April 29, 2010.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an action for a writ of mandamus ordering a board of 
county commissioners, the individual commissioners, and the director and 
assistant director of the county department of public facilities management to 
consider whether a low bid for a construction contract on a public-works project 
is the best bid without reliance on their unlawful finding that the low bidder had 
previously violated prevailing-wage law and to reinstate the bid and reconsider it 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
under the applicable criteria.  Because the company submitting the low bid has 
established its entitlement to the requested extraordinary relief based on our 
recent decision in State ex rel. Associated Builders & Contrs. of Cent. Ohio v. 
Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2010-Ohio-1199, __ N.E.2d __, 
we grant the writ. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} Franklin County is constructing a new animal shelter and adoption 
center.  The Franklin County Department of Public Facilities Management issued 
an invitation to bid for the electrical-systems package of the project.  At Section 
8.2.4 of the county’s invitation to bid, the construction manager is required to 
obtain from the lowest responsive bidder any information the project 
representative “deems appropriate to the consideration of factors showing that 
such Bidder’s bid is the best,” including 25 specified criteria. 
{¶ 3} One of these 25 criteria is listed in Section 8.2.4.15 as 
“[i]nformation that the Bidder has not been debarred from public contracts or 
found by the state (after all appeals) to have violated prevailing wage laws more 
than three times in a two-year period in the last ten years.”  Notwithstanding the 
language in the county’s invitation to bid, the county treats the prevailing-wage 
violations of Section 8.2.4.15 as dispositive and it ignores other factors once it 
determines that a bidder has violated prevailing-wage laws more than three times 
in a two-year period in the last ten years. 
{¶ 4} Relator, Gaylor, Inc. (“Gaylor”), is a commercial electrical 
company with locations in several states, including Ohio.  On November 23, 
2009, Gaylor submitted the lowest bid for the project’s electrical-systems 
contract. 
{¶ 5} By letter dated December 28, 2009, respondent Richard E. Myers, 
the Assistant Director of the Franklin County Department of Public Facilities 
Management, notified Gaylor that the county had rejected its bid because Gaylor 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
“has been found by the State of Ohio to have violated the State’s prevailing wage 
laws more than three times in a two-year period within the last ten years” and was 
thus ineligible for the award.  The county’s determination that Gaylor had 
violated prevailing-wage law was based on its own review and investigation of 
Ohio Department of Commerce records, even though the department has never 
found that Gaylor violated prevailing-wage law.  All of Gaylor’s alleged 
violations were unintentional underpayments that it had settled without admitting 
liability or any administrative or judicial finding of liability. 
{¶ 6} Pursuant to Section 8.3.1.1 of the county’s invitation to bid, Gaylor 
submitted a written protest to the county’s rejection of its bid and requested a 
meeting on its protest.  The meeting was held on January 14, 2010, and Gaylor 
submitted additional evidence to support its contention that it had never been 
found by the state to have violated prevailing-wage law.  On February 9, 2010, 
respondent James A. Goodenow, Director of the Franklin County Department of 
Public Facilities Management, denied Gaylor’s protest and affirmed the county’s 
rejection of its bid on the electrical-systems portion of the county animal-shelter 
project.  The county’s rejection of Gaylor’s bid was based solely on the county’s 
interpretation of Section 8.2.4.15 despite having no evidence that Gaylor had been 
found by any administrative or judicial authority to have violated prevailing-wage 
law; the county did not consider any of the other criteria. 
{¶ 7} On February 22, Gaylor filed this original action for writs of 
prohibition and mandamus against the individual Franklin County Commissioners 
as well as the director and assistant director of the Franklin County Department of 
Public Facilities Management.  Gaylor also filed a motion for an emergency stay 
and an expedited alternative writ.  The next day, February 23, the Franklin County 
Board of Commissioners awarded the electrical-systems contract for the county 
animal-shelter project to Jess Howard Electric, Inc., for about $100,000 more than 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Gaylor’s bid, executed the contract, and issued a notice to the company to 
proceed. 
{¶ 8} On March 12, we dismissed Gaylor’s prohibition claim and denied 
its motion for an emergency stay and expedited alternative writ insofar as the 
motion was based on the prohibition claim.  State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. 
Goodenow, 124 Ohio St.3d 1511, 2010-Ohio-919, 923 N.E.2d 154.  We also 
granted an alternative writ on Gaylor’s mandamus claim, allowed Gaylor to file 
an amended complaint to name the Franklin County Board of Commissioners as 
an additional respondent, and stayed respondents from “enforcing or proceeding 
on their decisions disqualifying relator’s bid and awarding the contract to an 
alternate contractor pending the court’s resolution of relator’s mandamus claim.”  
Id.  Gaylor filed an amended complaint to name the board as a defendant, and we 
extended the stay to the board.  State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow, 124 Ohio 
St.3d 1513, 2010-Ohio-959, 923 N.E.2d 156.  Upon respondents’ motion for 
clarification of the stay, we specified that respondents “are precluded from taking 
any action or authorizing any contractor to act in connection with this case until 
further order of this court.”  State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow, 124 Ohio 
St.3d 1515, 2010-Ohio-1030, 923 N.E.2d 157. 
{¶ 9} The parties have now submitted evidence and briefs on Gaylor’s 
remaining mandamus claim.  This case is now before the court for our 
consideration of the merits.  Because respondents claim that no construction on 
the county animal-shelter project can proceed until this case is resolved, we 
expedite our determination. 
Legal Analysis 
Mootness 
{¶ 10} Respondents argue that this mandamus complaint should be 
dismissed as moot because the electrical-systems contract has already been 
awarded to another contractor.  A “ ‘case is moot when the issues presented are no 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
longer “live” or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’ ”  
Los Angeles Cty. v. Davis (1979), 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 
642, quoting Powell v. McCormack (1969), 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 
L.Ed.2d 491.  “It is not the duty of the court to answer moot questions, and when, 
pending proceedings * * * in this court, an event occurs, without the fault of 
either party, which renders it impossible for the court to grant any relief, it will 
dismiss the petition * * *.”  Miner v. Witt (1910), 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21, 
syllabus. 
{¶ 11} Conversely, if an actual controversy exists because it is possible 
for a court to grant the requested relief, the case is not moot, and a consideration 
of the merits is warranted.  Allen v. Totes/Isotoner Corp., 123 Ohio St.3d 216, 
2009-Ohio-4231, 915 N.E.2d 622, ¶ 18 (O’Connor, J., concurring); State v. 
Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295, 2007-Ohio-4163, 871 N.E.2d 1167, ¶ 7.  In a 
construction-related case, if an unsuccessful bidder seeking to enjoin the 
construction of a public-works project fails to obtain a stay of the construction 
pending judicial resolution of its claims challenging the decision and construction 
commences, the unsuccessful bidder’s action will be dismissed as moot.  See, 
generally, TP Mechanical Contrs., Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Franklin 
App. No. 08AP-108, 2008-Ohio-6824, ¶ 20, and cases cited therein. 
{¶ 12} This case is not moot.  Gaylor filed this action challenging the 
county’s rejection of its low bid on the electrical-systems contract for the county 
animal-shelter project and sought a stay of respondents’ actions on February 22, 
which was before the board awarded the contract to another contractor.  And 
although the board did, in fact, award the electrical-systems contract to another 
bidder on February 23, which preceded our March 12 stay, respondents have 
introduced no evidence that the other contractor commenced construction 
pursuant to the awarded contract before we issued the stay. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 13} In this regard, respondents claim in their merit brief that 
“construction activities were commenced by Jess Howard Electric prior to the 
stay being issued” and cite an affidavit attached to their emergency motion for an 
expedited briefing schedule to support this statement.  But the cited evidence for 
this statement does not support it; instead, it merely states that the court’s stay of 
the electrical-systems contract effectively prevented other contractors from 
proceeding.  Gaylor previously rebutted a comparable unsupported claim made by 
respondents in their motion for clarification by stating in its memorandum in 
opposition:  “[The county] argues that * * * another contractor started performing 
the work (with no evidence that that has happened).”  (Emphasis added)  Yet 
respondents still failed to submit evidence that the other bidder had commenced 
construction on the electrical-systems contract before we issued the stay.  And the 
contractor that was awarded the project did not seek leave to intervene in this case 
to oppose Gaylor’s claim.  Therefore, this case is not moot and our stay of 
respondents’ actions has kept Gaylor’s mandamus claim viable.  Cf. TP 
Mechanical Contrs., at ¶ 20. 
{¶ 14} Therefore, we proceed to address the merits of Gaylor’s mandamus 
claim. 
Mandamus 
{¶ 15} Gaylor seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to fully 
and fairly consider whether its low bid was the best bid, without reliance on their 
unlawful finding that Gaylor had previously violated prevailing-wage law, and to 
reinstate Gaylor’s bid to fully and fairly consider it.  To be entitled to the writ, 
Gaylor must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a corresponding 
clear legal duty on the part of respondents to provide it, and the lack of an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 
123 Ohio St.3d 119, 2009-Ohio-4805, 914 N.E.2d 397, ¶ 11. 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
{¶ 16} We have generally recognized mandamus as the appropriate 
remedy to correct an abuse of discretion by a public board in a decision that is not 
appealable.  See State ex rel. Morgan v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 
121 Ohio St.3d 324, 2009-Ohio-591, 904 N.E.2d 506, ¶ 20.  Gaylor has no appeal 
from the county’s rejection of its bid and the board’s award of the contract to 
another bidder. 
{¶ 17} More specifically, we have held that mandamus is available to 
remedy an abuse of discretion by a board of county commissioners in its decision 
to award a competitively bid, public-works contract.  See State ex rel. Hanson v. 
Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 545, 550, 605 NE.2d 378, 
citing State ex rel. Executone of Northwest Ohio, Inc. v. Commrs. of Lucas Cty. 
(1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 60, 12 OBR 51, 465 N.E.2d 416 (“Executone is authority 
for the dismissal of a complaint that attacks the decision of a board of county 
commissioners to award a contract, but does not allege an abuse of discretion”  
[emphasis added]).  A board’s use of unannounced criteria to reject a bid on a 
public-works contract constitutes an abuse of discretion that is remediable in 
mandamus.  Hanson, 65 Ohio St.3d at 550, 605 N.E.2d 378. 
{¶ 18} Therefore, respondents’ reliance on cases like State ex rel. Al 
Monzo Constr. Co., Inc. v. Warren Bd. of Control (1961), 172 Ohio St. 370, 16 
O.O.2d 220, 176 N.E.2d 427, in arguing that Gaylor has an adequate remedy at 
law by prohibitory injunction or appeal, is misplaced.  Notably, Al Monzo was 
cited in the dissenting opinion in Hanson.  See Hanson, 65 Ohio St.3d at 553, 605 
N.E.2d 378 (Holmes, J., dissenting).  And a common pleas court action would not 
constitute an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, because Gaylor 
seeks extraordinary relief in the nature of a mandatory injunction to compel 
respondents to apply the criteria in a lawful fashion in assessing whether its bid 
for the electrical-systems contract is the lowest and best bid under R.C. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
307.90(A).  See State ex rel. Deiter v. McGuire, 119 Ohio St.3d 384, 2008-Ohio-
4536, 894 N.E.2d 680, ¶ 25. 
{¶ 19} Finally, on the remaining issue of whether respondents abused 
their discretion in rejecting Gaylor’s bid, we recently resolved this issue by 
holding that the county’s practice of misapplying Section 8.2.4.15 of its 
evaluation criteria to companies – like Gaylor – that had not been found by the 
state, after all appeals, to have violated prevailing-wage laws, constituted an abuse 
of discretion.  State ex rel. Associated Builders & Contrs. of Cent. Ohio v. 
Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2010-Ohio-1199, __ N.E.2d __.  
Respondents concede this in the parties’ joint stipulations.  And as in the rejection 
of the bid in Associated Builders, at ¶ 39, based on its erroneous application of 
Section 8.2.4.15 of its evaluation criteria to reject Gaylor’s bid, the county failed 
to apply the other criteria to assess the propriety of Gaylor’s bid.  Respondents’ 
misapplication of one criterion and their failure to consider other criteria in 
rejecting Gaylor’s bid is similar to the board’s use of unannounced criteria to 
reject a bid on a public-works contract that we held resulted in a potentially viable 
mandamus claim in Hanson, 65 Ohio St.3d at 550, 605 N.E.2d 378. 
{¶ 20} Based on the foregoing, Gaylor has established its entitlement to 
the requested writ to compel the reinstatement of its bid and a reevaluation of it 
based on the applicable criteria without reliance on Section 8.2.4.15.  Insofar as 
Gaylor now requests a writ of mandamus also be granted to compel respondents 
to award the electrical-systems contract on the county animal-shelter project to 
Gaylor, it is not entitled to this relief because it did not timely amend its 
complaint to include a request for it and it is ultimately the board’s determination 
under R.C. 307.90(A) whether Gaylor is the lowest and best bidder.  See State ex 
rel. Repository v. Nova Behavioral Health, Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 338, 2006-Ohio-
6713, 859 N.E.2d 936, ¶ 41 (court need not address merits of claim that was not 
raised in complaint or sought to be raised in an amended complaint; the parties’ 
January Term, 2010 
9 
 
evidence was submitted based on claims raised in the complaint, and there was no 
indication that the parties consented to the trial of the new claim).  We deny 
Gaylor’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 21} Therefore, we grant Gaylor a writ of mandamus to compel 
respondents to reinstate its bid and to determine whether, based on the applicable 
criteria, without reliance on Section 8.2.4.15, Gaylor is the lowest and best bidder 
for the electrical-systems contract of the county animal-shelter project.  If the 
respondents ultimately so determine, they shall rescind the award of the contract 
to the other bidder and award the contract to Gaylor. 
Writ granted. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, ACTING C.J., and LANZINGER, J., dissent for the reasons stated in 
the dissenting opinion of Pfeifer, J., in State ex rel. Associated Builders & Contrs. 
of Cent. Ohio v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2010-Ohio-
1199. 
 
The late CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS J. MOYER did not participate in the 
decision in this case. 
__________________ 
 
The Copley Law Firm, L.L.C., Michael F. Copley, Kenley S. Maddux, 
Mark E. Landers, and Adam F. Florey, for relator. 
 
Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, Nick A. Soulas Jr., 
First Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, and Anthony E. Palmer Jr. and Patrick J. 
Piccininni, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for respondents. 
_____________________