FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #45 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 22 nd day of October, 2019, are as follows:
PER CURIAM: 2019-C-00053 LEBLANC MARINE, L.L.C. VS. STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIVISION OF

ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF FACILITY PLANNING AND CONTROL (Parish of East Baton Rouge) In this case, we are called upon to decide whether a public entity’ s bid advertisement can impose more restrictive requirements than those requirements set forth in the Louisiana Public Bid Law, La. R.S. 38:2212, et seq. For the reasons that follow, we conclude a public entity may not deviate from the statutory requirements. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the petition of LeBlanc Marine, L.L.C. is dismissed with prejudice. REVERSED. Chief Judge Susa n M. Chehardy of the C ourt of Appea l, F ifth Circuit , appointe d as Justice pro tempore, sitting fo r the vacancy in the First District. Retired Judge Micha el Kirby appointed Justice a d hoc, sitting for C lark, J.1 0 / 2 2 / 1 9 SUPREM E COURT OF LOUISIANA No
. 2 0 1 9-C-0 0 5 3
LEBLANC M ARINE, L.L.C.

VS. STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIVISION OF ADM INISTRATION, OFFICE OF FACILITY PLANNING AND CONTROL
ON W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF E. BATON ROUGE

PER CURIAM * In th i s cas e, we are cal l edup o n t o d eci d e wh et h er a p ub l ic en ti t y ’ s b i d ad v ert i s em en tcan i m

p o s e m o re res t ri ct i v e req u i rem en t s t h an th o s e req ui rem en ts
s et fo rt h i n t h e Lo u i s i an a Pub l i c Bi dLaw, La. R.S. 3 8: 2 21 2 , et s eq . Fo r t h e
reas on s th at fo l l ow, we co n cl u d e a p ub l i c en t i t y m ay n o td ev iat e fro m

the s t atu t o ry req u irem en ts
.

U NDERLYI NG FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI STORY T h i s d i s p u t e ari s es o u to f a p ro jectkn o wn as Ph as e III Lev ee Rep ai rs at Ro ck efel l er W i l d l i fe Refu g e l o cat edi n Gran dCh en ier, Lo u i s ian a (“ th e Pro ject ”). In M ay 2 0 1 7 , th e St at e o f Lo u i s i an a, t h ro u g h t h e Di v i s i o n o f Ad m i n i st rat i o n , O ffi ce o f Faci l i t y

Pl an n i n g an d Co n t ro l (“ St at e”) i s s u edan ad v ert i s em en tfo r b i d s fo r t h e Pro

ject . Sect i o n 5 .1 .9 o f t h e St at e’ s i n s t ru ct io n s t o b i dd ers p ro v i d ed :

Secti o n 5 .1 .9

* Chi ef J udg e Susan M. Chehar dy of t he Cour t of Appeal , Fi f t h Ci r cui t , assi g ned as J ust i ce pr o t em por e, si t t ing f ort he v acancy i n t he Fi r stDi st r i ct
. Ret i r ed J udg e M i chael K i r by appoi nt ed J ust i ce ad hoc, si t t i ng f orJ ust i ce Cl ar k
.Th e au th o ri t y o f th e s i g n atu re o f the p ers on s ub m i t t i n g the b i ds h al l b e d eem ed s u ffi ci en tan daccep t ab l e u n d er an y o f t h e fo ll o wi ng co n d it i on s : (a) A co rp o rat e res ol u t i o n o r a co p y o f t he d et ai l edreco rdfro m th e Secret ary

o f St at e’ s b u s i n es s fi l i n g p ag e s ubm i t t edwi t h th e b i dp ack ag e as req u i redb y La. R.S. § 3 8 : 2 2 12 (B)(5 ); o r (b ) Anaffi d av i t , res o lu t i o n o r o t h er ack n o wl ed g edo r au t h en ti c d o cu m en t i n d i cat i n g th e n am es o f al l p art i es au t h o ri zedt o s ub m i tb i d s fo r p ub l ic co nt ract s . A b i d pack ag e s ub m i t t ed b y s u ch a l eg al en t it y s hal l i ncl u d e a cu rren tPo w er o f At t o rn ey cert i fy i n g ag en t’ s au t h o ri ty t o b in dBi d der, as req u i redb y La. R.S. § 3 8: 2 21 2 (B)(5 ). No t ab l y , Sect i o n 5 .1
. 9 o f th e b i d d i n g i n st ru ct i o n s were m o re res t ri ct i v e t h an th e st atu t o ry p ro v i si o n s fo r es t ab l i s h i ng a p ers o n ’ s au t h o ri t y t o b i du n d er La. R.S. 3 8 : 2 2 1 2 (B)(5 ). Th e s t atu t e p ro v i d es fo r a t o t al o f th ree m et h o d s fo r es t ab li s h i n g a pers on ’ s au t h o ri t y , wh i l e t he b i d di n g i n s t ru ct i o ns were l i m i t edt o two m et h o d s . Fo ll o wi n g th e cl o se o f b i dd in g , LeBl an c M ari n e, L.L.C. (“ LeBl an c”) was th e ap p aren tl o w b i d d er o n t h e Pro ject , an dSo u t h ern Del t a Co n s t ru ct i o n , L.L.C. (“ So u th ern Del ta”) was t h e ap p aren ts eco n dl o w b i dd er. Ho wev er, o n Sep t em ber 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 , th e St at e i nfo rm edLeBl an c t hati t s b i dwas reject edb ecau s e i tfai l ed t o
co m p l y wi th Sect i on 5 .1 .9 o f t h e i n s t ru ct i o n s t o b i d d ers . Sp eci fi cal l y , th e St at e cl ai m edLeBl an c fai l edt o s ub m i twri t t enev i d en ce o f t he au t h o ri t y o f t he p ers o n
s i g n i n g t h e b id as s etfo rt h i n t h e i n s t ru ct i o n s. Th e St at e t h ereaft er d et erm i n ed So u th ern Del t a was th e l o wes tres p o n s i v e b i d d er an d award edth e co n t ractfo r t h e Pro jectt o So u t h ern Del t a. LeBl an c fi l eda p et it i on fo r i n jun ct i v e an d d ecl arat o ry rel i ef, s eek i n g t o en

jo i n th e St at e fro m

award i n g t h e co n t ractt o So ut h ern Del t a, o r al t ern at i vel y , a d ecl arat io n th atan y co n t ract en t eredi n t o b y

th e St at e an d So u t h ern D el ta was n u l l an dv o id . LeBl an c’ s p et it i o n al l eg ed t h atSo u t h ern Del t a’ s b i dwas
n o n -res p o n s i v e b ecau s e i tv i o l at edSect i o n 5 .1
. 9 o f t h e i ns t ru ct i o n s t o b i d d ers . In p art icu l ar, LeBl an c as s ert edth atSo ut h ern Del t a fai l edt o i n cl u d e wri t t en
ev id en ce p ro vi ng th atth e p ers o n wh o s i g n edth e b i dh ad t h e au th o ri t y t o s i g n an d 2s ub m i tth e b i do n So u th ern Del t a’ s b eh al f. So u th ern Del t a’ s b i dwas s ig n edb y i t s

vi ce-p res i d en t , M i ch ael M ay eu x . So u t h ern Del t a i n cl u d eda “ Cert i fi cat i o n o f Au th o ri t y ” s i g nedb y

i t s p res i d en t Dan iel Fo rd i ce, III, wh i ch p ro v i d ed : Pu rs u an tt o t h e Requ i rem en t s o f L.S.A. R.S. 3 8: 2 2 1 2 , th e u n d ers i g nedd o es cert i fy th ath e i s t h e Pres id en to f [So u t h ern Del t a] an dthatM ik e M ay eu x, Vi ce Pres i d en t [,] i s dul y

au t h o ri zedt o s ub m i tb i d s an dt o ex ecu t e b i d s wi th al l p ub li c

en t i ti es . LeBl an c arg u es th i s Cert i fi cat i o n o f Au t ho ri t y fai l s t o m eetthe req u i rem en t s o f Sect i o n 5 .1 .9 o f th e i ns t ru ct io n s t o b i d d ers . Th e p art ies d o n o td i s p u t e, h o wev er, th ati t d o es m eetth e requ i rem en t s o f La. R.S. 3 8 :2 2 12 (B)(5 )(b ), wh ich p ro v i d es :

“ (b ) Th e s i g n atu re o n th e b i di s th at o f an au th ori zedrep res en t at i v e as d o cu m en t ed

b y th e l eg al en ti t y

cert i fy i n g th e au t ho ri t y

o f t h e p ers o n . ” Aft er So u t h ern Del t a i n t erv en edi n th e s u itt o p ro t ecti t s co nt ract i n teres twi t h t h e St at e, th e m at t er p ro ceed edt o a t ri al . Pri o r t o tri al , th e St at e, LeBl an c, an d So u t h ern Del t a s ub m i tt edjo i n ts t i p u l at i o n s o f fact an d ev id en ce. 1 A tth e co n cl u s i o n o f t ri al , th e d i s tri ctco u rtg ran tedLeBl an c’ s p et i t i o n fo r d ecl arat o ry

rel ief an dd ecl aredth atan y co n t ractex ecu t edb et ween th e St at e an d So u th ern Del t a was an ab s o l u te n u l l i t y . In reas o n s fo r ju d g m en t , th e d i s t ri ctco u rt fo u n dth atth e St at e was b o u n d b y t h e m o re res t ri ct i v e req u i rem en t s s etfo rt h i n i t s i n s t ru ct i o n s t o b i d d ers : In th i s cas e, t h e St at e o f Lo u i s i an a, i n th ei r ad v ert i s edIn s tru ct i on t o Bi d d ers , req u i redwi t h s p eci fi ci ty

wh atty pe o f wri t t en ev i d en ce o f au t h o ri t y wo ul db e accep tedas s u ffi ci en tt o es t ab li s h th at t he p ers o n s i gn i ng th e b i d h adth e au t h o ri t y t o d o s o . Th e wri t t en ev i d en ce req u i redb y th e In s t ru ct i o n t o Bi d d ers was m o re res tri ct i v e t h an wh ati s p ro vi d edfo r i n La. Rev . St at
. 3 8 : 2 2 12 (B)(5 ). Th erefo re, acco rd i ng t o th e l aw, the St at e o f Lo u i s i an a i s n ow b o u n db y th e m o re res t ri ct i v e m ean s o f p ro v i d i n g wri t t enev i d en ce o f au t h o ri ty . Sp eci fi cal l y , th e St at e o f Lo u i s i an a i s b o u n db y th e ad v ert i s edIn s t ru ct i o n t o Bi d d ers an dan y p ub l i c co n tractaward edi n v i ol at i o n o f t h e In s t ru ct i o n t o Bi d d ers i s an ab s o l u t e n u l l i t y .

1 Pr iort o t r i al , LeBl anc st i pul at ed t hat t he pet i ti on di d notcont est t he St at e’ s r ej ect i on of i t s bi d. 3So u th ern Del t a ap p eal ed . Th e co u rt o f ap p eal affi rm ed , fi n d i n g n o erro r i n th e

di s tri ctco u rt 's co n cl u s io n thatth e St at e was b ou n db y i t s m o re res t ri ct i v e b i d i ns tru ct io ns . LeBl a n c Ma r i n e, L.L.C. v. Di v. o f Ad mi n . , Of f i ce o f Fa ci l i t y P la n n i n g a n d Co n tr o l , 2 0 1 8 -0 4 3 4 (La.Ap p . 1 Ci r. 1 0 / 1 7 /1 8 ), 2 6 4 So .3 d5 0 3 . On e ju d g e d i s s en t ed , fi n d in g th e St at e d i dn o th av e au th o ri t y t o t ak e an act i o n wh i ch

was i n co n si s t en twi th th e Pub l i c Bi dLaw. Up o n So u th ern Del t a’ s ap p l icat i o n, we g ran t edcert i o rari t o co n s i d er t h e
co rrect nes s o f t h e d eci s i o n s o f t h e l o wer co u rt s. LeBl a n c Ma r i n e, L.L.C. v. Di v. o f Ad mi n ., Of f i ce o f Fa ci l i t y Pla n n i n g

a nd Co n tr o l , 2 0 1 9 -0 0 53 (La. 3 /1 8 /1 9 ), 2 6 7 So .3 d8 3
.

DI SCUSSI ON In Br o a d mo or , L.L.C. v. Ern es t

N. Mo r i a l New Or l ea n s Exh ib i t i o n Ha l l Au th ., 2 0 0 4 -0 2 1 1, 2 0 04 -0 2 1 2 , p . 6 (La. 3 /1 8 /0 4 ), 8 6 7 So .2 d 6 5 1, 6 5 6 , we d is cu s s edthe Pub l i c Bi dLaw an dex p l ai neda p ub l i c en t i t y m ay n o tt ak e an y

act i o n i n co n s i s t en t wi t h th i s l aw: Lo u i s i an a's Pub li c Bi dLaw, s etfo rt h i n LSA– R.S. 3 8 : 22 1 2 et s eq ., i s a p ro h i b i to ry l aw fo un d edo n p ub l i c p o l i cy . La . As s o ci a t ed Gen . Co n tr ., In c. , 5 8 6 So .2 d at1 3 5 9 ; H a ugh t o n El eva t o r

Di v. v. Sta t e Di vis io n o

f Ad mi n is tr a t i on , 3 67 So .2 d1 1 6 1 (La.1 9 7 9 ). Pu rs u an tt o t h e Pub l i c Bi d Law, th e l eg i sl ature h as s p eci fi cal l y p res cri bedth e co n d i t io ns up o n wh i ch i twi l l p erm i t p ub l ic wo rkt o b e d o ne o n i t s b eh al f o r o n b eh al f o f i t s p ol i t i cal s ub d i v i s io n s . Th e s t atu te was en act ed i n th e i n t eres to f t h e t ax p ay i ng ci ti zen s an dh as fo r i t s p u rp o s e t h e p ro t ect i n g o f t h em ag ai n s tco n t ract s o f p ub l i c o ffi ci al s en t eredi n t o b ecau s e o f fav o ri t i s m an d i n v o l v i n g ex o rb it an tan dex t o rt i o n at e p ri ces . Id

. A po l i ti ca l enti ty ha s no a utho ri ty to ta k e a ny a cti on w hi ch i s i nco ns i s tent w i th the Publ i c Bi d La w . Id

. at1 3 6 2 . [em

p h as i s ad d ed ]
. So u th ern Del t a co n ten d s th e St at e’ s b i dd i n g i n s tru ct i on s were i n co n s i s t en twi t h th e s tatu t o ry

m an d at e s etfo rt h i n La. R.S. 3 8 : 2 2 1 2(B)(5 ). Sp eci fi cal l y , i tp o i n t s
o u tth e s t atu t e i d en t i fi es th ree t y p es o f ev i d en ce t h at s hal l b e accep tab l e t o p ro v e a

4p ers o n’ s au t h o ri t y t o si g n t h e b i d , wh i l e t h e b i d di n g i ns t ru ct i o n s i nco rp o rat e o nl y t wo o f t h es e m et h o ds
. In co n tras t , LeBl an c s ub m it s the l ower co urt s co rrect l y fo un dthe St at e was b o u nd b y th e m o re res t ri ct i v e p ro v i s i o n s o f i t s b i di n s t ru ct i o n s . LeBl an c rel i es o n La. R.S. 3 8: 2 2 1 2 (B)(1 ), wh ich m an d at es t h at“ [t ] h e p ro v i s i o n s an dreq u i rem en t s o f th i s Sect i o n a nd tho s e s ta ted i n the bi ddi ng do cum ents s h al l n o tb e wai v edb y

an y en t i t y .” [em

p h as i s ad d ed ]
. W e b eg in o u r an al y s i s fro m th e wel l -s et t l ed p ri n ci pl e t h atl eg i s l at i o n i s th e s o l em n
ex p res si o n o f t h e l eg is l at i v e wi l l ; th u s, th e i n t erp ret at i o n o f l eg is l at i o n i s p ri m ari l y th e s earch fo r t h e l eg is l at i v e i n t en t
. Ca t 's Meo w, In c. v. Ci t y o f New Or l ea n s , 1 99 8 -0 6 0 1 , p .1 5 (La. 1 0 /2 0/ 9 8 ), 7 2 0 So .2 d1 1 8 6, 1 1 9 8 . Th e s t art i n g p o in tfo r i n t erp ret at i o n o f an y

s t atut e i s t h e l an g uag e o f th e s t atu te i t s el f. Id . Wh en a l aw i s cl ear an du n am

b ig uo u s , an di ts ap p l i cat i on d o es n o tl eadt o ab s u rdco n s equ en ces , i ts h al l b e ap p l i ed as wri t t en , wi t h n o fu rt h er i n t erp ret at i on m ad e i n s earch o f t h e l eg i s l at iv e i nt en t . La. R.S. 1 :4 . Fu rt h er, a s t atu te m u st b e i n t erp ret edan dap p l i ed i n a m an n er co n s i s t en twi th l o g i c an d t he p res u m edfai r p u rp o se an di n t en t i o n o f th e l eg i s l atu re i n p as s in g i t. MAW En t er p r is es , L.L.C. v. Ci t

y o f Ma r ks vi l l e , 2 0 1 4 -0 0 90 , p . 1 2 (La. 9 /3 /1 4 ), 1 4 9 So .3 d2 1 0 , 2 18 . Iti s p res u m edth atth e i n t en t i o n o f t h e l eg is l at i v e b ran ch i s t o ach i ev e a co ns i s ten tb o dy o f l aw. Id
. Sp eci fi c t o the i n st an td i sp u t e i s th e l an g u ag e o f La. R.S. 3 8 : 2 2 1 2(B)(5 ). Th i s
s t atu t e co n tai n s t h ree s ub part s wh i ch i d en ti fy th e t y p es o f ev i d en ce t hats h al l b e accep t ab l e t o p ro v e a p ers o n ’ s au t h o ri t y t o s i g n the b i d : (5 ) Wri t t en ev id en ce o f t h e au th o ri t y o f t h e p ers on s i g n i n g t h e b i d fo r p ub l i c wo rk s s h al l b e s ub m i t tedatth e t i m e o f b i d di n g . The a utho ri ty o f the s i g na ture o f the pers on s ubm i tti ng the bi d s ha ll be deem ed s uffi ci ent a nd a ccepta bl e i f

a ny o f the fo l l o w i ng co ndi ti ons a re m et :

5(a) Th e s i g n atu re o n t h e b i di s th ato f an y co rp o rat e o ffi cer l i st edo n t he m o s t cu rren tan nu al rep ort on fi l e wi t h th e s ecret ary o f s t at e, o r t h e s i g n atu re o n th e b i d is th ato f an y

m em b er o f a p art n ers hi p , l i m i t edl i ab i l i t y co m p an y , l i m i t edl i ab i l it y p art n ers hi p , o r o th er l eg al en t i t y l i s t edi n th e m o s t cu rren tb u s i n es s reco rd s o n fi l e wi t h the s ecret ary

o f s tat e. (b ) Th e s i g n atu re o n the b i d i s th ato f an au t h o ri zedrep res en t at i v e as d ocu m en t ed

b y t h e l eg al en t i ty

cert i fy i n g the au t h o ri t y

o f t he p ers o n . (c) Th e l eg al en t i t y has fi l edi n t h e ap pro p ri at e reco rd s o f t h e s ecret ary o f s t at e o f th i s s t at e, an affi d av i t , res o lu t i o n , o r o t h er ack n owl ed gedo r au t h en t i c d o cu m en t i n d i cat i ng th e n am es o f al l p art i es au t h ori zedt o s ubm i tb i d s fo r p ub li c co n t ract s . Su ch d o cu m en to n fi l e wi t h the s ecret ary o f s t at e s h al l rem ai n i n effect an ds h al l b e b i n di n g upo n the p ri n ci p al u n t i l s p eci fi cal l y res ci n d edan dcan cel edfro m th e reco rd s o f t h e o ffi ce. [em p h as i s ad d ed ]
. W e fi n dth e l an g u ag e o f t h i s s t atu t e i s cl ear an du n am b ig u o u s . Th e s t atu t e p ro v i d es th atth e au t h o ri t y o f t h e p ers on “ s h al l ” b e d eem eds u ffi ci en t an d accep tab l e “ i f an y ” o f t h e t h ree co n d i t i o n s o f p ro vi n g au t h o ri t y en u m erat edi n th e st atu t e are s at i sfi ed . Th e wo rd“ s h al l ” i s m an dat o ry . La. R.S. 1 : 3 . Thu s , th e leg is l atu re p l ai n l y i n t en d edth atan y o f t h e t h ree m et h o d s were s uffi ci en tt o
es tab l i s h a p ers o n ’ s au t h o ri ty t o b i d
. No n et h el es s , LeBl an c co n t en d s th is reas o n i n g co n fl i ct s wi t h th is co u rt ’ s i nt erp ret at i o n o f La. R.S. 3 8 :2 2 1 2 (A)(1 )(b ) i n Br o a dmo o r , i n wh i ch we ex p l ai n ed

“ wh en a p ub l i c en t i ty

el ect s t o p l ace cert ai n req u i rem en t s i n i t s ad v ert i s em en t s fo r b i d s an do n i t s b i d fo rm s , th aten t i t y i s b o u n db y

th o se req ui rem en t s an d m ay n o t ch o o se t o wai v e t h em

ata l at er d at e.” Br o a d

mo o r , 2 0 0 4 -0 2 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 -0 2 1 2 atp . 8 , 8 67 So .2 dat6 5 7 ; Ha mp 's Co n s t ., L.L.C. v. Ci t y o f New Or l ea n s , 2 0 0 5-0 4 8 9 (La. 2 / 2 2/ 0 6), 9 2 4 So .2 d1 0 4 , 1 1 0 . LeBl an c s ub m i t s t h atthe St at e, h av i n g el ect ed t o in cl u d e o n l y

two o f th e t hree m et h o d s o f p ro v in g a p ers o n ’ s au t h o ri t y , m ay n o t
n o w wai v e t h o s e s p eci fi cat i o n s . T h e cas e l aw h as reco gn i zed t h ata p ub li c en t it y m ay “ i n cl u d e req u i rem en t s an d i n s tru ct i o n s i n ad v ert i s em en t s an db i dfo rm s th atm ay ex ceedwh ati s req u i redb y

6th e Pub li c Bi dLaw, as l o n g as th e s tatu t ory req u i rem en t s are al s o m et .” Ph ylwa y Co ns t ., LLC v. Ter r eb o nn e Pa r . Co ns o l. Go v't , 2 0 1 3 -1 58 9 (La. Ap p . 1 Ci r. 9 / 5 / 1 4 ), 1 5 3 So . 3 d5 1 6 , 5 2 1 , wr i t d en i ed , 2 0 14 -2 6 7 7 (La. 3 / 1 3 / 1 5 ), 1 61 So .3 d 6 42 . Ho w ev er, t h e b i d d i n g i n s t ru ct i o n s wh i ch co n fl i ctwi th , rat h er th an m erel y
ex ceed , th e s t atu t o ry

req ui rem en t s an d p ro cedu res s etfo rt h i n t h e Pub l i c Bi dLaw
are n o tv al id
. S

ee Ba r r ier e Co n s tr . Co ., L.L.C. v. Pa r is h o f Ta n g i p a h o a , 2 0 1 8 -0 2 7 9 (La. Ap p . 1 Ci r. 9 / 2 4 / 1 8 ), 2 5 9 So .3 d 4 5 8 , 4 6 4
. In th e cas e at bar, t h e St at e’ s b i d d i n g i n st ru ct i o n s cl earl y co n fl i ctwi t h, rat h er t h an
m erel y ex ceed , th e m an d at o ry

p ro v is i o n s o f La. R.S.3 8 : 2 2 1 2 (B)(5 ) b y l i m i t i n g p ro o f o f au th o ri t y

t o o n l y two o f t he t hree p erm i s s i b l e p ro cedu res s etfo rt h i n th e
s t atu t e. Un d er s u ch ci rcu m s t an ces , th ere i s n o s ubs equ en twai v er o f t h e b i d req u i rem en t s ; rat h er, t h e b i d d i n g i n s t ru ct io n s were al way s faci al l y i n v al i dan d
m u s ty i el dt o th e m an d at o ry s t atu t ory req u i rem en t s p ro m

u l g at edb y

the l eg i s l atu re. Ou r d eci s i o n t od ay

al s o res t s up o n a s ou n d p ub l i c p o l icy fo u n d at i o n . Co u rt s h av e
reco g n i zed t h e Pub l i c Bi dLaw “ s ev erel y cu rt ai l s th e d i s cret i o n o f t h e p ub l i c
en ti ty , th ereb y en s u ri n g a l ev el p l ay i n g fi el d fo r al l b i d d ers an da fai r an d equ i t ab l e
m ean s b y wh i ch co m

p et i n g b i d s m i g h tb e ev al u at edt o d et erm i n e t h e l owes t
res p o n s i b l e an dres p o n s i v e b i d d er.” Gi l ch r ist Co n s t . Co . LLC v. Ea s t

Fel i ci a n a Pa r . Po l i ce Ju r

y , 2 0 12 -1 3 0 7 , p . 6 (La. Ap p . 1 Ci r. 7 /1 1 / 1 3 ), 1 2 2 So .3 d3 5 , 3 9
. Th ro ug h i ts en act m en to f La. R.S. 3 8 :2 2 1 2 (B)(5 ), th e l eg is l atu re s t an d ard i zed th ree m et h o d s o f p ro vi ng a p ers on ’ s au t h o ri t y . To al l o w a “ cafet eri a s t y l e” ap p ro ach wh ereb y

a p ub l i c en t i t y

i s al l o wedt o p i ckan d ch o o s e am o n g th es e
m et h o d s wo u l d o n ly

en gen d er co n fu s i o n am o n g p ot en t i al b i d d ers . As ap t l y d em o n s trat edb y

th e fact s o f t h i s cas e, an y d ev i at i o n o f t h e b i ds p eci fi cat i o n s fro m th es e m an d at o ry

s t atu t o ry req u i rem en t s h as th e p o ten t i al t o i m p ai r o n e o f t h e

7p ri m ary

g o al s o f t h e Pub l i c Bi dLaw, n am el y , “ s ecu ri n g free an du n res tri ct ed
co m p et i ti o n am o ng b i dd ers , th ereb y av o i d i ng u n du e o r ex ces si v e co s t s.” Ap o l i n a r v. Pr o fes s io na l Co n s tr uct i o n S

er vi ces , 1 9 9 5

– 0 7 46 , p . 4 (La.1 1 / 2 7 / 9 5 ), 6 6 3 So .2 d 1 7 , 1 8 –1 9
. Acco rd i n g l y , we fi n d th e d is t ri ctco u rt erred i n g ran t i n g d ecl arat ory an di n jun ct i v e rel i ef i n fav o r o f LeBl an c b as edo n a fi n d i n g t he St at e was b ou n db y th e m o re
res tri ct i v e req u i rem en t s s etfo rth i n i t s i n s tru ct i on s t o b i d d ers . W e h ereb y rev ers e th e ju d g m en to f co u rt o f ap p eal wh i ch affi rm edth e ju d gm en to f t h e d i s t ri ctco u rt
.

DECREE Fo r th e reas o n s as s i gn ed , th e ju d g m en to f th e co u rto f ap peal i s rev ers ed , an dthe p et i t i o n o f LeBl an c M ari n e, L.L.C. i s d is m i ss edwi t h p reju d i ce.

8