Opinion ID: 2327680
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Associated Builders & Contractors

Text: We begin with the reasoning in Associated Builders & Contractors. The trial court's decision was based almost entirely on its interpretation of that case, in which this court concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing. The plaintiffs were a trade association of contractors and subcontractors (association) and two individual subcontractors who sought to enjoin the defendant, the city of Hartford, from awarding a contract for the construction of a municipal parking garage. Connecticut Associated Builders & Contractors v. Hartford, supra, 251 Conn. at 171, 740 A.2d 813. The association claimed that, but for a PLA requirement in the bid specifications, some of its contractor members would have submitted bids on the project. Id., at 177, 740 A.2d 813. The defendant subsequently sought to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds, alleging that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Id., at 174, 740 A.2d 813. At the outset of its decision, the court described the principal issue as whether nonbidding contractors and subcontractors [14] ha[d] standing to challenge a bid specification for a municipal project that require[d] the successful bidder to agree to abide by a [PLA]. Id., at 170-71, 740 A.2d 813. It then determined that the nonbidding general contractors, who were represented by the association, did not have standing to file the complaint. Id., at 185, 186, 740 A.2d 813. The court explained: In order to have standing, a general contractor member would have had to establish a colorable claim that: (1) either it bid on the project, or it would have submitted an equivalent bid, but for the [PLA] requirement; and (2) inclusion of the [PLA] requirement effectuated fraud, corruption, favoritism or other acts undermining the objective and integrity of the bidding process. Id., at 186, 740 A.2d 813. The court stated that the plaintiffs had not established that the general contractor members of the association had met either part of the test because, [w]ith respect to the first part, the association did not show that any of its general contractor members had bid on the project or would have bid on the project. . . . The association cannot, therefore, invoke the standing of its general contractor members as a basis for its own standing to pursue its challenge to the validity of the [PLA] requirement. Id. After concluding that the association had not satisfied this foundational, or threshold, element, the court determined that, [e]ven if this foundational element had been met by testimony of the association's general contractor members that they would have bid, but for the [PLA] specification, the association still cannot prevail under the second part of the standing test. Id., at 186-87, 740 A.2d 813. With respect to the second part of the test, the association had claimed that the PLA requirement arbitrarily and anticompetitively limit[ed] access to the bidding process because it imposed costs [on] nonunion general contracts that made it economically unfeasible for them to bid, and, therefore, it violated the integrity of competitive bidding . . . [and] injur[ed] the general public by driving up the cost of government funded projects. Id., at 187, 740 A.2d 813. The court disagreed, explaining that, [e]ven assuming that the [PLA] requirement might increase the project's cost, we know of no requirement in the competitive bidding statutes that propels cost considerations to the top of the list of appropriate considerations for public contract specifications. If cost alone were the determinative factor of appropriate bid criteria, disappointed bidders or nonbidders would have virtually unlimited opportunities to litigate project specifications on the ground of alternate designs, materials, safety requirements and so on. Such litigation would involve courts in comparative cost assessments that would severely impair the discretion of governmental bodies entrusted with the responsibility for governmental construction projects. It is neither unusual nor unfair for project specifications to give some potential bidders an economic advantage over others because of factors such as the bidder's expertise, specialization and reliability. Id., at 187-88, 740 A.2d 813. The court elaborated that the record failed to show that cost considerations had precluded nonunion general contractors from participating in the bidding process, stating in a footnote that the plaintiffs ha[d] provided no explanation as to how the alleged increased expense to some potential bidders would raise the costs of the overall project. An increase in costs in one aspect of a project can equally well result in overall cost savings for the project. By avoiding labor disruption and maintaining a supply of skilled workers, as the project construction manager testified the [PLA] was designed to do, the [PLA] could reduce overall costs. The record . . . does not, in fact, support the association's claim that cost considerations precluded nonunion general contractors from participating in the bidding process. Two of the five bidders were nonunion contractors. The association presented no testimony to support its claim that government projects using [PLAs] had higher total costs than other similar projects without [a PLA]. Id., at 187 n. 12, 740 A.2d 813. The court thus concluded that the association had failed to make a colorable factual showing to support its claim of economic disadvantage. Id., at 187, 740 A.2d 813. The court stated that the the record . . . demonstrates a nondiscriminatory decision by the [defendant] to use a [PLA]; id., at 188, 740 A.2d 813; and that the determinative factor in a bidding challenge was whether the requirements in that process had been applied consistently and in good faith. Id., at 189, 740 A.2d 813. 2