### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Ma rc h 7, 200 7 S es sio n
LANIE R WORLDW IDE , INC. v. ST ATE OF TE NNESSEE , ET AL 

### . A Dire ct A ppeal f

rom the Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 06-2030-II The Honorable Carol Mc Coy, Chancellor

No. M2006- 02630-COA-R 3-CV - F iled on Ap ril 17, 2007

This case involves the protest of a bid made pursua

nt to an i n v i t at i on to bid issued by the State for c opy

machines. U

pon protest made b y sever al of the bidde rs as to the bid made by the selec ted bidder, the board of standards, after revie w, awarde d the contract t o the s elec ted bi dder. The next qualified bidder filed suit in c hance ry court, a nd the cha ncer y court re verse d the dec ision of the board of standards and awa

rded the contra ct to the complaining bidder. The State-def endants a nd the selec ted bidder a

ppeal. We re verse and re mand.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; A ppe al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t R e ve r se d and Rem anded

W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., joined.
Rob er t E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter ; J anie C. Porter, Senior Counsel, f or Appellants, State of Te nnessee
Willi a m B . H ub ba

rd and Marc Jenk ins of Na sh vil le , T e nn e sse e ; J. Ric ha rd L od g e Jr., and

Rus se ll S. Baldwin of N ashville, Tenne ssee f or Appe llant, Océ Imag istics, I nc.
J ames A. D eL anis, Dar

win A. Hindman, I I Iand Mar y Ann M iranda

of Na shville, Tennessee for Appellee , L anier

Worldwide, I nc.
OP IN ION
This case arises f

ro m p rot ests filed by

L anier Worldwide, I nc. (“ L anier ,” “Plaintiff,” or “Appe llee”) and Oc e ! I mag istics, I nc. (“ Oce ! ”) c oncer nin g t h e S t ate of Tennesse e’s ( “State”) procur ement of le ases f

or copy machines ( the “Copier Con t ra ct ”) throug h its Genera l Services Depa rtment (“G ener al Service s”). T.C.A. § 12- 3-214 (Supp. 2006) outlines the proc edure for suc h pr ote sts . U nd e r t

his statut e , G e ne ra l Se rv ic e s h a s th e ini tia l a uth or ity “ to s e ttl e and

re so lve a pr ote st of a bidde r....” T.C.A. § 12-3-214( c). I f the prote ster is not satisfied with the re solution by Gene ralO n Aug us t 18, 200 6, Lan i er f i l ed an amendment t o t he ori gi nal C o m p l aint i n or der t o add addi t i onal 1

a lleg a tio n s a n d re q u e sts fo r re lief.
-2- Service s, then the proteste r may appea l the Gene ral Service s’ decision to the Boa rd of Standar ds (the

“ B o ar d ” )

. T

. C

. A

. § 1 2

- 3

- 2 1 4 ( c ) ( 2 )

. T h e B o ar d i s c o mp r i s e d o f t h e C o mp t r o l l e r o f t h e T r e a s u r y, (J o h n G. Morg an) the Commi ssioner of Ge nera l Services, ( Gwendoly n Sims Davis) a

nd the Com mis sio ne r o f F ina

nc e and Ad

min istratio n ( Da

ve Go e tz) (t og e the r w ithMr . M or g an, Ms. Da vis , and the State, “State Def

endants,” and, tog ether

with Oce ! , “Appe llants”). The statute also provides that the protester may reque st a st ay of proceeding s with awa rd of the di sputed contra ct. T.C.A. § 12-3-214( d). F ollowing the execution of any contested contrac t, the admini strative proc ess provides that the protester may file a claim aga inst the State for mone y damag es in the Claims Comm ission. T.C.A. § 12-3-214( e).

B e g inn ingin S e pte mbe r 2 00 5, Ge ne ra l Se rv ic e s, thr ou g h its Pur c ha sin g Di vis ion , p ub lic ly
a dv e rt ise d fo r b ids fo r t

he Cop ie r C on tr a c t. O n Jan ua ry 6, 20 06 , th e State iss ue d a n Inv itatio n to B id (“I TB” ) soliciting c ompetitive bids for the Copier Contrac t. Two of the bidders were Oc e ! and L anier . When the bids were opened on January 23, 2006, the Purcha sing D ivision recommended that the Copier Contrac t be awa rded to Oc e ! . L anier was the second lowest bidder. The bids we re ma de
a va ila ble fo r p ub lic ins pe c tio n o n F e br ua ry 14 , 2 00 6. Th e re a ft e r, L anie r a nd oth e rs fi le d p ro te sts wi t h Ge n er al Service s conce rning the State’s dec ision to award the Copier Contract to Oce !

. Specifica lly , L anier

asser ted that Oce ! ’s bid was non-responsive in that the produc tivity level of one of Oc e ! ’s copy machines (the Oc e ! 21 10 ) did no t mee t the I TB ’s sp e c if ic a tio ns fo r t

he pr od uc tiv ity of the document fee der. By letter of Marc h 3, 2006, Gene ral Service s suspended the Copier Contract
awa rd until the m at t er c ould be re solved. Following an informa l hear ing on Ma rch 23, 2006, Gene ral Service s addre ssed L anier ’s protests by letter dated April 10, 2006. In that letter, Ge nera l Service s states that, “[i] n order to ensure se curingadequate competition for the solicitation of bids fo r t he state wi de c op ie r c on tr a c t, a ll b ids on [the Cop ie r Con tr a c t] sh ou ld be re je c te d, and

the pr oc e ss beg un anew ....” B eca

use Ge nera l Services decided to re- bid the C opier Cont rac t, it did not rea ch the issue of Oc e ! ’s alleg ed fa ilure to submit a responsive bid and, instea d, specific ally prete rmitted that issue.

L anier

and Oc e ! both appea led Genera l Service s’ decision reje cting all bids to the Boar d. The Boa rd held a hear ing on July

27, 2006 and found, int e r a lia , t h at t h e b i d s should not have bee n reje cted, a

nd that Oce ! ’s bid was responsive t o the I TB. T he B oard’ s findings w ere set out in a letter to the protester s dated August 7, 2006.

On the mor nin g of Au g us t 15 , 2 00 6, the Cop ie r C on tr a c t wa s ful ly e xec ute d an d a wa rd e d to Oce ! . L ater , on that same day , L anier filed a “Ve rified Complaint for De clar atory Relief, To Extend the Stay of the Aw ard of a S tate Contrac t, or for Te mporary Restraining Orde r, Preliminary I nju nc tio n a nd I nju nc tiv e Re lie f” (t

he “ Com pla int ” ) a g a ins t th e State De fe nd ants

. B y it s C o m p l a int , 1 L anier soug ht, int e r a lia : a dec laration that the selection or attempted selec tion of Oc e ! for the Copier Contract wa s illega l a

n d v o id ; a temporar y restra ining or der, pr eliminary injunction, and a per

manent injunction ag ainst the awa rd of the Copier

Contract to Oce ! , and for

other fur ther a nd g ener al re lief.-3-

Also o nA u g u s t 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , L an ie r f il e d it s “ M o ti o nto Co n ti n u e St ay an d f o r E n tr y o f T empora ry Re str a ini ngOr de r, Te mpo ra ry I nju nc tio n or Oth e r I nju

nc tiv e Re lie f” a lon g wi th a Me mor and

um i n support there of. On Aug ust 16, 2006, Oce ! filed a “ Motion to I nterve ne and Opposition t o TRO.” Attac hed to th is Motion i s an exhibit titled “Statewide Contrac t Awar d,” which r efle cts that the Copier Contract had been a

war ded to Oce !

. By

its Moti on, Oce ! asser

ted that, bec ause the Copier Contract had bee n awa

rded, L anier ’s re quest for a TRO was moot and should be denied. Oce ! also asser ted that L anier ’s “e x clusive reme dy ” was “bef ore the Claims Commissi on on damag es.” A n “Ag ree d Orde r of I nterve ntion” was e ntere d on Aug ust 23, 2006. There afte r, the trial c ourt denied L anier ’s reque st for a TRO a

nd, in denying sa

me, noted that “[c]opy

of contra ct re fl ec t s contract awa rded Aug ust 15, 2006.” On August 21, 2006, the State filed the administrative r ecor d. On Aug u s t 2 1 , 2006, Oce ! filed a Motion to Dismiss on t he g rounds that the L anier ’s Complaint was moot because it sou gh t t o enjoin a contr act that ha d alre ady been a war ded. Oc e ! fu rt he r a sse rt e d th a t th e tr ia l c ourt la c ke d ju

ri sd ic tio n o ve r cla ims fo r m on e tary dama g e s. Contemporaneous w ith the Motion to Dismi ss, Oce ! moved the cour t for an e x pedited hea

ring on that Motion and specific ally

reque sted that the Motion be hear d on Aug ust 24, 2006 at the same time as L anier ’s Motion for Tempora ry I njunction. H oweve r, Oc e ! did not set the Motion to Dismi ss or the Motion for Ex pedited Hearing on the court’s docket as require d by the Davidson County L ocal Rules of Prac tice. B y

Orde r of Septembe r 1, 2006, the he aringon L anier ’s Motion for Tempor ary I njunction was postponed to September 8, 2006.

Var ious filings took place in the foll owing wee ks. On Novembe r 2, 2006, a he aringon the merits took place. A t that hear ing, the trial court de nied L anier ’s re quest for a temporar y injunction
as re flec ted by t h e Or d er en tere d on November 28, 2006. On Novembe r 14, 2006, the trial c ourt enter ed its “Memora

ndum and Orde r,” in whic h it found, in releva nt part, that: [tr 4 509] [T] he B oard of

Standards violated state statu t es, the Rules of the PurchasingDivision and fundamenta l principles of the bid proce ss by allowing Oce ! to m a ke su bs tanti ve bid

modific a tio ns a ft e r t

he bid op e nin g . T he a c tio n of the B oa rd wa s ille g a l and

a bs e nt t he ill e g a lly p e r m i t t e d s u p p l e m e n t a l d o c u m e n t s an d e x p l an a t i o n s , ar

b i t r ar y. Acc ording ly , the award to Oce ! is de clar ed void a nd of no ef

fec t. The State is enjoined from proc eedingany further with Oce ! con tra c t. B on d is se t a t $5 00 ,0 00 .0 0. Th is c a us e is re mand e d to t

he B oa rd wi th instructions to adher e to fair a nd proper bid proce dures a

nd to make an appr opriate a

war d in keepingwith the sound princip l es o f t he
c omp e tit ive bid

pr oc e ss.
At the Novembe r 14, 2006 hea ring , the trial cour

t also denied Oc e ! ’s re qu e st f or sta y a s re fl e c te d in the Novembe r 28, 2006 Orde r.-4-

On Novembe r 20, 2006, Oc e ! fi le d it s N oti c e of Ap pe a l. O n D e c e mbe r 1 3, 20 06 , th e State Defen d an t s fi l ed their Notice of Appe al and motion for stay . On Dec ember 15, 2006, this Court
e n te r e d a n O r d e r s ta

y in g th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s N o v e mb e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 O r d e r p e n d in g th e r e s o luti o n of the appea l.
The State De fenda

nts raise the f

ollowing issues for

revie w as stated in their

brief:
1. Whether the Chanc ery Court erre d in fail i n g to dismi ss L anier ’s claim for la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction and fa i lure to state a claim upon which r elief ma y be g rante d.

2. Whe the r the Cha

nc e ry Court e rr e d b y imp ro pe rl y

su bs tit uti ngits judgme nt for the de cision of the B oard of Standards, finding that the Boa rd of Standar ds acte d illega lly and arbitrarily , enjoining the State,
and vo idi ngthe c on tr a c t.
3. Whe the r t

he Cha nc e ry Court e rr e d in fi nd ingthat no a

uth or ity exis ts for a post bid openingclar ification proc edure

. Oce ! raises f

our issues for r eview a s stated in its brief:
1. Whether Oc e ! ’s bid is r esponsive to the I nvitation to Bid (“I TB” ).
2. Whether the Chanc ery Court had jurisd i cti on to enterta in the appea l after

the awa rd of the contrac t and af

ter pe rfor mance under the
c on tr a c t.
3. Whether the Chanc ery Court e rre d in r elying on provisions of the State’s I nvitation to Bid {“I TB” ) that ar e not appli ca b le to [t he] dis pu te be fo re it.

4. I n the event the S tate’s contrac t awa rd wa s improper, whe ther the Chance ry Court erre d in holding the c ontrac t void ab ini tio

. We will consider the State’s f irst issue for re view:
1. Whether the Chanc ery Court erre d in failing t o d ismiss L anier ’s claim for lack of subjec t matter jurisdiction and fa ilure to state a claim upon which r elief ma y be g rante d.
The boa rd of standa

rds, by letter dated Aug ust 7, 2006, held that the Océ bid was re sponsive, and the c ontrac t would be awarde d to Océ , which was done upon its ex ecution August 15, 2006. On Au g us t 15 , 2 006, su

bs e qu e nt t o th e awa

rd and e xec uti on

of the c on tr a c t to Oc é , L anie r f ile d th is-5-

action, which se eks, among other things, an injunction to enjoin the awa rd of the contra ct to O cé a

nd, as subseque ntly

amende d, to enjoi n the continued ope ration of the c ontrac t. Pursuant to the provisions of

T.C.A. 12-3-214 ( 2006 Supp.), bidders have a rig ht to protest to the commissioner of g ener al servic es any

ag g rieve ment they

might have in connec tion with t h e bid process, and the
comm i s s i o n er i s authorized to resolve the pr otests so made. T.C.A. 12-3- 214 (a) (b)( c)( 1). I f the controve rsy

is not resolved by

the commissioner in a manne r satisfac tory to the protestor, the matter may be conside red by

the boar d of standar ds. T.C.A. § 12-3-214 (c )(2)

. T. C.A . § 12 -3 -2 14 fu

rt he r p ro vid e s sp e c if

ic a lly : (d) St ay o f Pr o c u r e me n ts D u r in g Pr o te s ts

. Pr io r to th e aw ar d of a contra ct, bidders who ha

ve prote sted may

sub mi t to the c ommissi oner a wr itten petition for stay of award. Such stay shall become eff ective upon rec eipt by

the state. The state shall not proce ed further with the bid proce ss or with the awa rd of the c ontrac t until the protest has be en resolved in a ccor dance with this section, unl e ss the board of standards makes a written deter

mination that c ontinuation of the bid proce ss or the awa rd of the c ontrac t without delay is nece ssary

to pr o t ect subs t an t i al i ntere sts of the state. I t shall be the re sponsibili ty of the commissioner, with the assistance of the procur i ng ag ency , to seek
su c h a de te rm inatio n b y

the bo ard of sta nd ard s. (e ) P ro te sts Sub se qu e nt t o Awar d. Th e Te nn e sse e c la ims commission h as ex clusive jurisdiction to determine a ll monetary claims ag ainst the state under t h is section for the ne g lige nt de pr ivatio n o f s ta tut or

y ri g hts Significa ntly , the g ener al assem b l y provided that prote stors would be protec ted by a stay prior to t he award of a contract and, moreove r, spec ifically provided that prote sts subsequent to the
awa rd be lon g in t

he e xclusi ve do ma in o f t he Te nn e sse e Cla ims Com mis sio n. Th e le g isl a tur e is deeme d to be aware of t he long-standing common law of the state that whe re it appe ars that the a ct to be enjoined has been consummated, an action for an injunction prese nts only a moot question and will be dismiss ed. S

e eB a d g e t t v . B r o o me , 4 0 9 S

. W

. 2 d

3 5 4 (T en n

. 1 9 6 6 )( ci t i n g Malone v. Peay , 15 7 T e nn . 4 29 , 7 S.W. 2d

40 (1 92 8) ); B o

y c ev . W i l l ia ms , 389 s.W.2d 272 (Tenn. 1965).

I n construing statutes, the Court’s role is to asce rtain and give eff ect to the leg islative intent without unduly

restric ting or

expanding a

statute’s cove rag e beyond its int ended sc ope. Sallee v. Bar re tt , 17 1 S.W. 3d 82 2 (T e nn . 2 00 5) ; Mc Ge ev . Be st , 1 0 6 S

. W

. 3 d 4 8 ( T e n n

. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 0 2 )

. In McGe e , the Court said:

Th e ru l e o f

s t a tu t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o nt o w h i c h a l l o t h e r s mus t y ield is that the intention of the leg islature must preva il. Ma ngr um v . O we ns , 9 1 7 S

. W

. 2 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 6 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. 1 9 9 5 )( ci t i n g Pl oug h,-6- Inc. v. Premier Pneum atics, Inc. , 6 60 S .W .2 d 4 95 , 4 98 (T e nn . Ct

. Ap p. 19 83 ); City of Humbol dt v . M orris , 579 S.W .2d 860, 863 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978 ))

. "[L ]egislative intent or pur pose is to be
asce rt ained pr imarily

from the natural and or dinary meaningof the lang uag e used, when rea d in the context of the entire statute, w ithout any forc ed or subtle construction to limit or extend the import of the lan guage." Id . (citing Worrall v. Kroger Co. , 545 S.W .2d 736, 738 (Tenn. 1977) ). The Court has a duty to construe a

statute so that no part will be inoper ative, super fluous, void or insignifica nt. The Court must give effe ct to ever

y word, phra se, cla

use, and se ntence of the Act in orde r to ac hieve the L eg islature' s intent, and it must construe a statute so that no sec tion will destroy another

. Id

. (c i t i n g City of Car y v ill ev . Ca mpbe ll Co unty , 660 S.W .2d 510, 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 19 83 ); Ti dwe ll v . Co lli ns , 522 S.W .2d 674, 676 (Tenn. 1975)

. Id. at 64.
The trial c ourt, in its opini on, states: “This cour t may enter tain judicial revie w of a ny a g e nc y ’s a dmi nis tr a tiv e a c tio n, e ve n th ou g h th e a g e nc y ha s a lr e a dy

awa rd e d th e c on tr a c t. Metropolitan Air R esearc h T es t i ng Au thori ty, Inc. v. Metro Gov ’t of Nashville and Davidson Coun ty , 842 S.W .2d 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992), perm. app. denied (Nov. 30, 1992).” T his Court has no quar

rel with the statements by the t rial court; howeve r, i t appea rs t hat in the Me tro

po lit an Ai r Research case , the question of mootness was not ra ised and, in fa ct, t h i s C o urt aff irmed the trial
c ourt ’s jud g me nt an d re mand e d the c a se to the tr ia l cou rt fo r t he e ntr y of an o rd e r g ra

nti ngthe c ity a summary

judgme nt and dismissi ng the claim ag ainst t h e city for a lleg edly

actingarbitra

rily and
unrea sonably

. We do not consider the de cision in Metropolitan Air R esearc h to mean that the Court may enjoin an ac t that has alre ady happene d.

I n this ca s e, L anier

failed to a ct promptly

and file suit to seek a

stay and other

relief

. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is reve rsed. W e will, howeve r, consider the other issues for r eview.

Th e se c on d is su e fo r r e vie w r a ise d b y the State is:

2. Whe the r t he cha

nc e ry c ourt e rr e d b y imp ro pe rl y

su bs tit uti ngits judgme nt for the de cision of the B oard of Standards, finding that the Boa rd of Standar ds acte d illega lly and arbitra rily , enjoining the State,
and vo idi ngthe c on tr a c t.

I n Internat

ional B usin e

s s M a c hi ne s Corp. v. Board of Stan dards of the Stat e of Te nnessee , 1992 WL 184805 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug . 5, 1992), one of the issues for r eview w as whe ther the pr oper standard of

revie w of the de cision of the boar d of standar d s i s u n d er the common law wr it of
c e rt ior ari . T he Court

he ld t hat “ wh e re the a dmi nis tr a tiv e a g e nc y is p e rf orminga fu nc tio n th a t is-7-

e sse ntially

le g isl a tiv e or

a dmi nis tr a tiv e , o nly

a na rr owre vie w u

nd e r t he c omm on

law w ri t is available

. Hoo v e r Mo tor Exp re ss Co. v . Rai lro ad and Pub lic Ut

ili tie s Co mm iss ion , 195 Tenn. 593, 26 1 S.W. 2d 23 3 ( 19 53 ); People’ s Bank of V

an Leer v. Bryan , 55 Tenn. App. 166, 397 S.W.2d 401 (1965). The Court expl ained:

I n h e ar i n g t h e p r o t e s t , t h e B o ar d p e r f o r m s a f u n c t i o n t h a tis
e sse nti a lly

a dmi nis tr a tiv e . E va luatin g a bid to s e e if

it c omp lie s w ith the I TB is a

function of the D epar

tment of Ge n er al S ervic es, one wh ic h th e a g e nc y

mus t pe rform da ily

in c arr y ingou t it s ad minist rative duties. Where disputes arise in conne ction with the depar tment's a dminist ration of the state proc ureme nt sy stem, the power to resolve t h e dispute is given to the B oard. B ut the function is stil l ad m i n istrative, much like the f unctions perf

ormed by the Com mis sio ne r o f I

ns ur anc e in r

uli ngon an a pp licat ion f

or a ra te incre ase, Pack v

. Royal Globe Ins. Co. , 224 Tenn. 452, 457 S.W.2d 19 (1970), or the S uperintende nt of Ba nks in ruling on a

n application to e stablish a branc h bank. People's Bank of V an Leer v. Bryan , 55 Tenn.App. 166, 397 S.W.2d 401 (1965).
There f o r e , th e c o u rts mu s t l im it th e ir r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar d ’s de c isi on to t he na rr owsc op e of

the c omm on

law w ri t.
Id. at *2.

Procee dings under the common law wr it of cer tiorari ar e limited in the courts to the question of whe ther a

n administrative boar d acte d fra udulently , illega lly , or excee ded its jurisdiction and if, upon the examination of the evidenc e befor e board, the court finds that ther e is any materia l evidence to sustain the board’s f

inding, its ac tion co uld be af firmed. City of Mem

phis v. Sh erwood Bldg. Corp. , 208 Tenn. 17, 343 S.W.2d 869 (1961).

I n Rob inso n v

. Cl e ment , 65 S.W .3d 632 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), this Court stated:

A common-law writ of cer tiorari is an e x traordina

ry judicial
re m ed y
. Robin son v. Traugh ber , 1 3 S.W.3d 361, 364 (T e nn .Ct .App .1 99 9) ; Fite v. State Bd. of Paroles , 925 S.W .2d 543, 544 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). I t is not available a s a matter of rig ht, Boyce
v . W i l l ia ms , 215 Tenn. 704, 713-14, 389 S

. W .2d 272, 277 (1965); Yokl e y v . St ate , 632 S.W .2d 123, 127 (Tenn.Ct.App.1981), but r ather is addresse d to the trial court' s discretion. Blackm on v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles , 29 S.W .3d 875, 878 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000). Acc ording ly , decis i o n s to gr ant or de ny a common-la

w writ of
cer tiorari ar e re viewed u sing the familiar “ abuse of discretion” standard. Robin son v. Traugh ber , 1 3 S. W.3 d at 36 4. Un de r t his
s t an d ar d , a r ev i ew i n g co u rt s h o u l d n o tre v er s e at ri al co u rt 's-8- discretionar

y decision unless it is bas ed on a misapplication of controlling l egal principles or a c lear ly err oneous asse ssment of the evidenc e, Ov e rst

re e t v . Sho ne y 's, Inc ., 4 S.W .3d 694, 709 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999), or

unless it affirmat i vely

appea rs that the trial court' s deci s i o n was a g ainst logic or re asoning , and ca used an injusti ce or injury to the complaining party

. Ma rc us v . M ar c us , 993 S.W. 2d 59 6, 60 1 ( Te nn .1 99 9) ; Douglas v. Estat e of Robertson , 876 S.W .2d 95, 97 (Tenn.1994)

. Th e sc op e of

re vie w und e r a

c omm on -l aw w ri t of

c e rt ior ari is
e xt rem e ly lim ite d. Court s ma

y no t ( 1) inq

uir e int o th e int

ri ns ic
corr ectne ss of

the lower tribunal' s decision, Arnol d v. Te nnessee Bd. of Paroles , 9 56 S .W.2d

47 8, 48 0 ( Te nn .1 99 7) ; Po we ll v . P ar ole E l i gi b i l it y R evie w Bd. , 8 7 9 S. W. 2 d 871, 873 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994), ( 2)
rew eig h the evidenc e, Wa tts v. Civil Se rv . Bd . f or Col umbia , 606 S.W. 2d 27 4, 27 7 ( Te nn .1 98 0) ; Hoover, Inc. v. Me tropolit an Bd. of Zoning App e als , 924 S.W .2d 900, 904 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996), or (3) substitut e their judgme nt for that of t he lower tribunal. 421 Corp. v. M e t r o p o l it a n G o v 't , 36 S.W .3d 469, 474 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000). R at h er , t h e w ri tp er m i t s t h e c o u rt s t o ex am i n e t h e l o w e rt ri b u n al 's decision to deter

mine whether

the tribu n al ex cee ded its jurisdiction
or ac ted illeg ally , fra

udu l en t ly , or ar

bitrarily

. Turner v. Tennessee Bd. of Paro l

es, 99 3 S. W.2 d 7 8, 80 (T e nn .Ct .App .1 99 9) ; Da nie ls v. Traughber , 984 S.W .2d 918, 924 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).

Id. at 635. Th e t r i a l c o u rt c o n c l u d e d t h a t O c é s u b m i t t e d t o t h e S t a t e a s e r i e s o f l a te bid mod if ic a tio ns in o rd e r t o c ur e a fa c ia lly no n- re sp on siv e bid

and tha t, i n e ff e c t, i t w a s n ot a c lari fi c a tio n of the bid

. I t thu s a pp e ars that the se min a l qu e sti on inv olv e d is wh e the r the S ta te allowed a nd Océ p ro p o s ed modifications to i ts bid as opposed to a cla rification of what it had previously

contained in its bid. Appar ently , L anier asser ts that Océ w as allowe d to submit a diffe rent copying ma chine or

differ ent s pecs for a c opy ing ma chine than the one on which it had initially bid. The re cord r efle cts, howeve r, that t he bid made by Océ , along with the other bidder s, had bee n on machines that were capa

ble of be ing ne tworked, a

nd the question rea lly boiled down t o whether the machine bid by

Océ had the capa

bility of a docume nt fee der at 75 pag es per minute. I t is undisput ed that Océ ’s bi d price never chang ed, and it appea rs t o contra dict L anier ’s asser tion that a differ ent machine at a hig her c ost was being offe red the State afte r the bids had been opened. Océ ’s bid was considera bly highe r than L anier ’s bid, beca use it include d its sophis ticated e quipment that fee ds 90 pag es per minute.

Th e pr oc e e din g s b e fo re the bo ard re fl e c t th a t Mr . M a tt Ros s, a buy e r wi th g e ne ra l se rv ic e s, testified conc erningthe clar ification re quired a nd how it arose.-9- MR. ROS S: W ith respec t to specs wi t h the B uy er’ s L ab on OC É, Ikn owthat it

do e s in c lud e – 2 11 0 do e s h a ve op tio ns , PRI SMA op tio ns

. Idecla red a n intention to award

. T h at’s jus t merely an intention. After the intention, we then opene d up the file for revie w so all these prof

essionals from L anier

and Oc é could c ome in and oth e rs to e xami ne the fi le and loo k it ov e r a nd ra ise qu e sti on s. I f i n t h e ca se, like there was in this case , about eng ag ing the document fee der a nd whatnot, they ’re almost a tool that helps us evaluate it as
we ll.

So a fter my , y ou know, g ranting an intending to awar d, that’s when L anier

posed a va lid question. And I ag ree d with the question. That’s whe n Iwent bac k to Océ a nd so u gh t cl ar ification bec ause I couldn’t find it in the BL I . So wh en L anier raised that question, that’s when w e eng ag ed in –

COMMI SSI ONER GOE T Z: What clarifica tion did y ou rec eive?

MR. ROS S: Clarific ation from Océ saying that – that’s when the communication beg an with the letter dated F ebrua

ry 21 in the st protest pac ket there . That’s the one wher e they spok e ab out it does in d eed meet the spec s. They mentioned the Doc Setter, explained t h at

. S o t h er ef

o re Ip re p ar edt h e i n t en d i n g –
COMMI SSI O N E R G OETZ : So y ou have no r eason to be lieve the re wa s n o inten t no t to bid the a dd iti on a l do c ume nt f e e de r t o imp ro ve the sp e e d to me e t th e qu a lif ic a tio ns ?

MR. ROS S: Honestly , sir, no. On t he bid t here ’s not a plac e fo r you to wr ite in a ll the a c c e sso ri e s that’ s g oin g to be inc lud e d w ith t h e s e m a c h i n e s

. S o y o u w r i t e y o u r m o d e l i n ; y o u w r i t e y ou r b id price . There fore , y ou know, I ag ree d.

COMMI SSI ONER GOETZ : That’s why y ou have to go se ek
c lari fi c a tio n s ome tim e s?

MR. ROS S: Absolut ely . Yes, sir.

Mr . T ha d Watki ns , g e ne ra l c ouns e l f or the bo ard of sta nd ard s, the n q

ue sti on e d M r. Ros s:-10- MR. WAT KI

NS: Me mbe rs of the B oa

rd , I wa nt M a tt Ro ss – Matt, if y ou could stand up. Matt, I want y ou to e x plain to the Boa rd what y ou wer e just t ell ing me , the issue that was r aised by L anier afte r it review ed the f

ile. I forg et which tab where they alleg e that on its fa c e it s ho we d th a t it

fe ll b e low

pe rf or manc e sta nd ard s. Had you s een that or was that the f irst time y ou saw that problem wa s when L anier broug ht it to y ou?

MR. ROS S: That was t h e first time Iwas a war e of the pr ob le m.
MR. WAT KI

NS: Di d y ou

mis s it ?

MR. RO SS: Ri g ht.

MR. WAT KI

NS: Yo u mi sse d it

. MR. ROS S: That’s why

we ope n the fil e for inspection, to g et people in the industry

actua lly to point out m i s t akes or instances wher e we may

have overlooke d something. I n this case that’ s what happene d.

L et’s propose I caug ht that on the front end and r ecommende d to by pass Océ I mag istics for fa iling to meet the s p ec . Be fore we by pass them, we w ould have clar ified with the company and soug ht clar ification bef

ore w e b y p assed them a

nd went on to the next low bidder so –

MR. W ATKI

NS: The rea son –
COMMI SSI ONER G O ETZ : We’ve had c larifications before

. MR. W ATKI

NS: Yes. And the re ason y ou broug ht it up was
n o tj u s tb ec au s e L an i er b ro u gh t i t u p an d y o u we re t ry i n g t o s al v age the intended a

war d, but that y ou just hadn’t seen it bef ore?

M R

. R O S S : E x a c t l y.
MR. WAT KI

NS: And if y ou ha d s e e n it be fo re , y ou

wo uld have soug ht clarific ation?

M R

. R O S S : A b s o l u t e l y.-11- M R

. W AT KINS : Be fo re b y p as s i n g?

MR. RO SS: Ri g ht.

MR. W ATKI

NS: That’s exactly the same thing y ou did after L a nie r b ro ug ht t

he iss ue ou t.
MR. ROS S: The fac t that L anier caug ht it and I didn’t catc h it, that’s reg rettable

. But they did catc h it and once it was ca ug ht we
a c te d in the wa y Iwo uld have a c te d if

Iha d c a ug ht i t.

MR. W A T K I

N S: A n d y o u w e r e s a ti s f ie d w it h the clar ifications that cure d any potential – that clar ified and satisfied y ou that they would, in fac t, meet the entire level of the specific ation?

MR. RO SS: Y e s, sir , I

wa s.
Th e b o ar d

o f s t an d ar d s r e n d e r e d

i t s d e c i s i o n , an d

w e qu o t e f

r o m t h e r e c o r d

t h e c o mme nts
ma de by e a c h me mbe r:

C OM M I S S IO N E RGO E T Z: T h er e a re a c o u p l e o f t h i n gs tho ug h th a t I

thi nk to me , at le a st, se e m to be fa ir ly c le ar i nd ic a tor s, tw o t h i n g s

. O n e i s t h e a m o u n t o f m o n e y o n t h e b i d do c ume nts submitt ed. That would seem to inlcude – it would seem to bear out the contention by

Océ that they

had included this hig h-spee d document imag er in their orig inal proposal that wa s submitt ed at the time. I t was there

. S econdly , in the letter c ited on Fe bruar y 20 it does cite the th 90-page -per-minute, which is the same as the Sca nSubmit spec, at le a st a s I un de rs tand

it at th is p oin t.

I t seems unclea

r as to exactly what the doc ument was. I t was at least unc lear

enoug h to get the – once it was broug ht to y our attention, to ge t our buy er to see k a cla ri fi ca t i on. And it does not seem to ha v e change d the substance of the bid g iven the appa rent e vid e nc e that it

wa s in c lud e d in

the or ig ina l bi d p ri c e

. I fi nd that, i n my opinion, that the bid does not deserve to be disqualified.

COMPTROL L ER MORGAN: Iconcur with that. I think y ou’ve state d it wel l. And, fra nkly , Idon’t know exactly – Idon’t know how – what we asked fo r wa s the machine manufa cture r and mod e l numb e r. Th a t’ s what the y re sp on de d in the ir bid

. I t almo st i s-12- essential then to go behind in this case beca use i t’s – there ’s nothing in the literature sug g esting t h er e’s a differ ent model number a s published in B uy er’ s L ab for this c opier with the 90-pa g e docume nt fee der on it. So I ’m n o t sure how the y would ever

be any more responsive tha

n they wer e base d on what they submitt ed.

So I c on c ur wi th the Com mis sio ne r. I thi nk it w a s p e rf e c tly
a pp ro pr ia te

. I f the qu e sti on be ra ise d, I thi nk it wa s p e rf e c tly
a pp ro pr ia te the c lari fi c a tio n b e so ug ht. There’ s n oth inghe re to sug g est to me t hat t here would be any thing differe nt today

than they [si c] were when the bid wa s orig inally submitt ed. I

concur with the Commi ssioner.

COMMI SSI ONER DAVI S: Ig uess for me it was pretty clea r to me just looki ng at the pric es, y our differ ence betwee n the price of Océ

. As far as the clar ification is c oncer ned, I think you answe red that very well. A n d t o s ee kclar ification on an item that y ou’re not rea lly sure of , that was appropr iate.

. . . L ooking at the documents, it’s evidenc e to me that – I

don’t fee l this bi d should be d isqualified. I think there’s suf

ficient doc umentation.
This Court not ed i n Ma rta v . M e tro . G ov . o f N as hv ill e , 842 S.W .2d 611 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992):

Courts ar e w ar y o f u n w ar

r an te d ju d ic ia l in tr

u s io n s in to the perf ormanc e of or dinary

g overnme ntal activities . . . .
Sin c e pr oc ur ingg oo ds and se rv ic e s is a

ty pe o f r o utin e a c tiv ity that is best left to g overnme ntal o f f icials, most courts have r ecog nized that public procur ement author ities have wide discretion with re g ard to a c c e pti ngbid s or any of the oth e r de ta ils of e nte ri ng int o a c on tr a c t. (citations omitted) Purchasingofficia ls must n o t be ar bitrary , unrea sonable, or capr icious.” Wo od

-H op kin s Cont

ra c ting Co. v

. Ro ge r J . Au & Son, Inc. , 354 So.2d 446, 449-50 (Fla . Dist. Ct. App. 1978). Thus, in the absenc e of f

raud, c orruption, or pa lpable ab u se of discr etion, the courts will ordinarily

not in t er fer e with g overnme ntal procur ement decisions.”

Id. at 619.-13-

Fr om our review of the record, we find that there is substantial and material evidenc e in the
reco rd t o sup po rtth e deci si on of t he b oard of s tan dard s t hat Océ m et t he s peci fi cat io ns in th e I TB. We further

find that it was not improper f or t he department of g ener al servic es to seek c larification fo r s ome of

the iss ue s r a ise d b y

L anie r i n or de r to be sure that the Sta te wa s g e tti ng the be st p ro pe rl y made bid in this proposed proc ureme nt. It appea rs that the trial c ourt substitut ed its judgme nt for the bo ard of sta nd ard ’s jud g me nt.
Th e State ’s ne xt iss ue fo r r e vie w i s: 3. Whe the r t

he Cha nc e ry Court e rr e d in fi nd ingthat no a

uth or ity exis ts for a post bid openingclar ification proc edure

. The trial c ourt found that t h e p u r c h a s ingdepar

tment had no authority

for se eking clar ification of the bids proposed. L anier cites no authority prohibiting c larification, and it appear s from a r eview of the rec ord that clar ification is soug ht on occa sion to prevent nee dless and unwa rra nted proc edura l dif fi c ult ie s in

c omp le tin g the bid din g pr oc e ss. I t c e rt a inl y is no t in dis pu te that c lari fi c a tio n s ho uld not be used to cor

rec t an ot herw ise nonresponsive bid. That i s not the case befor e us. The r ecor d does not indicate any

unfair de aling or pra ctices on the part of the State, and the c larification made by Océ es tab li sh ed t hat it s b idat t he co st st ate d co mp li ed w it h t he s peci fi cat io ns of t he I TB.

Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the c hance ry court is reverse d, and the case is remande d to the chanc ery court with instructions to dismi ss the petition for writ of c ertiora ri. Co s t s o f t he appe al
are assessed a g ainst Appellee , L anier Worldwide, I nc. All other issues a re pr eter mitted.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK CRA WF OR D, PRE S I DI NG J UDG E, W .S.