Opinion ID: 1160921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether ABC has standing to challenge the PSA under competitive bidding laws

Text: Preliminarily, the Commission maintains ABC lacks standing to challenge the legality of the PSA under the competitive bidding laws. The Commission acknowledges it did not raise below all the arguments regarding standing it now presents in its brief, but observes that `contentions based on a lack of standing involve jurisdictional challenges and may be raised at any time in the proceeding.' ( Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 438 [261 Cal.Rptr. 574, 777 P.2d 610].) We therefore proceed to consider whether ABC has standing to assert such a challenge on behalf of its members. To establish associational standing, ABC must demonstrate that its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right. ( Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal. App.3d 1515, 1522, 236 Cal.Rptr. 78.) To have standing to seek a writ of mandate, a party must be beneficially interested (Code Civ. Proc., § 1086), i.e., have some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large. ( Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796, 166 Cal.Rptr. 844, 614 P.2d 276.) This standard, as the Commission points out, is equivalent to the federal injury in fact test, which requires a party to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it has suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is `(a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.' ( Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville (1993) 508 U.S. 656, 663, 113 S.Ct. 2297, 124 L.Ed.2d 586.) The Commission contends both aspects are absent here, in that ABC has failed to establish the PSA excluded its members from consideration for contracts ( id. at p. 666, 113 S.Ct. 2297) or that their compliance with the PSA would result in adverse economic consequences to them ( Associated Builders & Contractors v. Baca (N.D.Cal.1991) 769 F.Supp. 1537, 1541-1542). ABC predicates its allegation of standing on a declaration by John Robinson, the Executive Director of the Golden Gate Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., stating that seven named members of Associated Builders and AACA refused to bid on the airport project due to the PSA specification. ABC also appears to rely on an allegation that, as citizens and taxpayers of this state, ABC's members have a beneficial interest in ensuring that no worker is denied access to employment on a public works project by the operation of the union hiring hall provisions of the PSA. The Commission contends ABC's claim of associational standing must fail, because the Robinson declaration does not establish that ABC's members have bid in the past or have the necessary qualifications, such as a proper license, to submit a valid bid in the future. (See Cornelius v. Los Angeles County etc. Authority (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1761, 1771-1772, 1773, 57 Cal. Rptr.2d 618.) Further, ABC fails to allege its members would bid on contracts of the requisite size, since San Francisco's competitive bidding law applies only to contracts over $50,000 (S.F.Admin.Code, § 6.1), and its state counterpart applies only to contracts in excess of $4,000 (Pub. Contract Code, § 20121). ABC's claim of taxpayer standing similarly fails, the Commission argues, for lack of the requisite allegation the plaintiff is a citizen resident [in the city or county], or ... a corporation, who is assessed for and is liable to pay, or, within one year before the commencement of the action, has paid, a tax therein. (Code Civ. Proc., § 526a.) Finally, ABC's claim of public interest standing fails, according to the Commission, because no statute authorizes ABC to bring this suit on behalf of nonunion contractors or their employees, and ABC has made no showing that nonunion contractors or their employees ordinarily are unable to maintain such proceedings on their own behalf. (See Bd. of Soc. Welfare v. County of L.A. (1945) 27 Cal.2d 98, 100, 162 P.2d 627; Cornelius, supra, at p. 1779, 57 Cal. Rptr.2d 618.) ABC responds that its standing stems from the injury visited on its members by being precluded from competing for airport contracts on an equal basis with union contractors. (See Bras v. California Public Utilities Com'n (9th Cir.1995) 59 F.3d 869, 873 [to demonstrate standing, challenger of minority business enterprise quotas need only show it is forced to compete on an unequal basis].) As will appear, because the PSA excludes no qualified contractor from bidding, it does not deny ABC's members equal opportunity to seek airport contracts. If, however, ABC could demonstrate that the PSA specification has the effect of infringing its members' rights of association or expression, or that it has an anticompetitive impact on them, then ABC might legitimately claim a beneficial interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1086 and cases interpreting that statute. Thus, although ABC's allegations on the issue of standing are rather scanty, we conclude they suffice to confer standing to challenge the PSA on behalf of its members. (See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1995) 515 U.S. 200, 211, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158.) (In a later part of this opinion addressing ABC's claim that the PSA violates certain provisions of the Labor Code, we discuss the Commission's contention that ABC lacks standing to assert the interests of its members' employees.)