Opinion ID: 1266394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agreements with SCAGO and the Corporation

Text: The Plaintiffs claim that the resolution and its attendant agreements improperly create contracts with SCAGO and the Corporation without complying with the competitive bidding requirement in the School District's procurement code. We disagree. As our jurisprudence instructs, an issue that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract is not ripe for judicial review. Waters, 321 S.C. at 227, 467 S.E.2d at 917-18. Stated differently, [a] justiciable controversy is a real and substantial controversy which is ripe and appropriate for judicial determination, as distinguished from a contingent, hypothetical or abstract dispute. Id. (quoting Pee Dee Elec. Co-Op, Inc. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 279 S.C. 64, 66, 301 S.E.2d 761, 762 (1983)). The Plaintiffs' claims on this issue can be grouped into challenges to three arrangements: (1) the arrangement under which the School District is to convey the existing school facilities to the Corporation and lease the land on which these facilities sit to the Corporation; (2) the arrangement under which the School District may purchase the renovated or newly constructed facilities by making annual installment payments to the Corporation; and (3) the construction contracts the School District may enter on behalf of the Corporation. [11] As a first matter, neither conveying the existing facilities nor leasing the Corporation the land on which these facilities sit involves the expenditure of public funds. Therefore, the procurement code does not apply to these agreements. Second, an adjudication of the Plaintiffs' claims on the remaining agreements at the present time presumes too much. As yet, no public funds have been appropriated as installment payments under the Installment Purchase and Use Agreement. Thus, this challenge can only be deemed an academic and premature exercise. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' remaining claim assumes that the School District will award the renovation and construction contracts in a manner other than by competitive sealed bidding. Because this claim involves pure hypothesis and speculation, this claim is not ripe for judicial review. Assuming the Plaintiffs meet the required elements of standing, the proper time to bring this claim would be after the School District awarded a construction contract to a contractor without using the sealed competitive bid process. [12] Accordingly, we dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims that the agreements improperly create contracts with SCAGO and the Corporation without competitive bidding. Most of these claims fail on their merits, and those remaining are not ripe for review.