Opinion ID: 2192632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rejection of Plaintiff's Bid.

Text: The plaintiff argues that the council's discretion to determine the lowest responsible bidder was limited by HUD's final authorization and review. It argues that, since the council [decided] to proceed with the project in the face of HUD's disqualification of Knudson ... and [its] qualification of Istari as a responsible bidder, the City admitted the issue of Istari's responsibility, and was estopped from denying it. As a general rule, we are reluctant to interfere with a local government's determination of who is the lowest responsible bidder, absent proof that the determination is fraudulent, arbitrary, in bad faith, or an abuse of discretion. See, Menke v. Board of Education, 211 N.W.2d 601, 608 (Iowa 1973); Mortland, 156 Iowa at 722-23, 137 N.W. at 1010; see also 10 E. McQuillan, supra, § 29.83, at 425; 63 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 1005, at 582 (1950). Sections 384.99 and 384.100 placed the responsibility for determining who is a responsible bidder upon the governing body. Here, the city council was that appropriate governing body and had the obligation to determine who was the lowest responsible bidder. Once the determination was made, the final contract award was subject to HUD's authorization. While the funding for the project was to come from HUD, the management and control of the project was charged to the council. Under this arrangement, HUD could withhold funding for the project, but it could not force the council to accept a particular bidder as responsible. Such a determination was within the proper discretion of the council. We believe the council acted within its discretion, and that no illegality was shown in the council's actions under any of the plaintiff's theories. The district court was correct in annulling the writ. AFFIRMED.