Opinion ID: 2150644
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: absence of competitive bidding

Text: Three agreements, engineering and construction, operating and lease-purchase, were made without competitive bidding. Section 14-365.08, R.R.S.1943, required a metropolitan city to advertise for sealed bids and to let a contract for construction of a sewage disposal plant to the lowest responsible bidder. Requirements for competitive bidding are strictly construed against public authorities. Cullingham v. City of Omaha, 143 Neb. 744, 10 N.W.2d 615 (1943). In Wurdeman v. City of Columbus, 100 Neb. 134, 158 N.W. 924 (1916), we upheld a contract awarded to the lowest bidder on specifications including patented material. The patentee, however, had offered to supply the material at the same price to all bidders. We decline to rule flatly that competitive bidding requirements literally control every situation. Should we do so, we would compel governing authorities at times to act against the public interest. Where a process or article is patented, public authorities may specify its use without complying with competitive bidding requirements in these circumstances: The process or article in their judgment possesses such exceptional superiority that it would be a public injury for the authorities not to use it. See, Wegmann Realty Co. v. City of St. Louis, 329 Mo. 972 at 985, 986, 47 S.W.2d 770 at 775, 776 (1932); Smith v. City of Seattle, 192 Wash. 64, 72 P.2d 588 (1937); 10 McQuillin (3d Ed.), Municipal Corporations, s. 29.42, pp. 348 to 353 (1966). Similarly, a contract with an operator of a facility may be let without competitive bidding where highly specialized technical skills possessed only by him are required to operate the facility. See Potts v. City of Utica, 86 F.2d 616 (2d Cir., 1936). Plaintiffs state that the venture has turned out badly, but the evidence supported the practicability of the Greenfield process, particularly in respect to the quality of the effluent from the Greenfield process. In the particular circumstances, the agreements were not subject to competitive bidding requirements. Other contentions of plaintiffs are not well taken. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.