Court Opinion

ID: 9724131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:45:41.196181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:56.370582
License: Public Domain

*1473BUTLER, J.
I concur in the result, parting company with my colleagues’ conclusion San Diego Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), as a matter of law, is not required to award this contract to the low bidder, whoever that may be. That conclusion is not necessary to disposition of this writ proceeding. Simply stated, the proposed award of the contract to Comarco is excepted from any requirement, expressed in statutes or implied by law, that the contract be awarded the lowest bidder.
“As a general rule, competitive bidding for public entities is a mandatory requirement as provided by statute, charter or ordinance [citation]. However, there are certain well recognized exceptions to said rule. One exception is where the nature of the subject of the contract is such that competitive proposals would be unavailing or would not produce an advantage, and the advertisement for competitive bid would thus be undesirable, impractical, or impossible. [Citations.]
“The rationale for the adoption of the above exception is found in the purposes of the provisions requiring competitive bidding in letting public contracts. Those purposes are to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption; to prevent the waste of public funds; and to obtain the best economic result for the public. [Citation.] However, the competitive bid requirement is to be construed fairly and reasonably with sole reference to the public interest and in light of the purposes to be accomplished. [Citations.] Therefore, it has been held that where competitive proposals work an incongruity and are unavailing as affecting the final result, or where competitive proposals do not produce any advantage, or where it is practically impossible to obtain what is required and to observe such form, competitive bidding is not applicable. [Citation.]” (Graydon v. Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 631, 635-636 [164 Cal.Rptr. 56].)
Graydon, at pages 636-637, cites a number of cases applying the exception in a variety of contexts. SAFE’S request for proposals falls within the exception applicable to contracts calling for special skills and services.
The contract here does not call for a year’s supply of paper clips or like commodity readily obtainable over the counter or through catalogues. Minutes of a meeting of SAFE’S board of directors tell the story:
“Subject
“Selection of Vendor Freeway Call Box Project
“Introduction
“Five bidders originally submitted proposals to SAFE. Three of the five submitted complete bid packages and hardware for testing. These three firms are Comarco, Inc.; Cubic Communications, Inc.; and Motorola.
*1474“As directed by your Board, a Technical Evaluation Committee was appointed to evaluate the proposals. This committee, composed of SAFE Executive staff, Caltrans, California Highway Patrol, City of San Diego Communications, and SAFE’S technical consultant evaluated the proposals based on the following criteria:
“1. Price Proposals
“2. Evaluation of Technical Proposals
“a. Lab Testing
“b. Field Testing
“3. Design Enhancements. These are technical features beyond the minimum required in the bid specifications.
“4. Project Management, including previous experience.
“5. MBE/WBE Participation
“6. CHP Review
“Based on the evaluation of these criteria, the Technical Evaluation Committee presents the following recommendation to the SAFE Board.
“Recommendation
“Direct the Executive Director to prepare a contract to include 10 year vendor financing with Comarco, Inc. for purchase and installation of the 963 call box system.
“Discussion
“Bidders were required to submit technical proposals and pricing for system sizes of 755, 963, and 1,382 boxes. The bidders were requested to provide vendor financing proposals for 5, 10, 15 and 20 year pay back periods.”
The minutes reflect discussion of the criteria. Price proposals considered vendor financing and public financing and compared the three proposals. Motorola did not propose vendor financing. Comarco’s and Cubic’s vendor financing were close, $9,641,200 for Comarco, $9,467,000 for Cubic, a difference of 1.8 percent.
The three bidders submitted production configuration equipment for testing in addition to written technical proposals. Cubic’s radio receiver initial*1475ly failed and was resubmitted with a design modification that did not comply with specifications. Comarco equipment passed field testing. Cubic’s equipment was deficient in several respects and did not demonstrate required public telephone network interface.
The California Highway Patrol, citing extensive experience with mobile radio communications, concurred in the selection committee recommendation of Comarco.
The evaluation committee recommended Comarco based on seven findings, all of which are supported by its report and attachments. SAFE’S board of directors considered questions raised by vendors and answers provided by its staff. These questions and answers further demonstrate the freeway emergency telephone system proposed to be purchased, installed and operated by SAFE is unique, one-of-a-kind, and not available except through vendor design and vendor-prepared specifications, field testing of components and consideration and comparison of technical features, maintenance and financing options.
The conclusion is inescapable. The freeway emergency telephone system required by SAFE to fulfill its statutory responsibilities is not subject to competitive bid, because it is unique, one-of-a-kind, and the public fisc would not be served by a competitive bid requirement. The majority reaches the right result for the wrong reasons.
The petition of real party in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 5, 1988. Mosk, J. was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.