Court Opinion

ID: 9652535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:25:32.413085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:52.174360
License: Public Domain

dissenting.
The fundamental law of this case is that the Commonwealth, like any party to a contract, absent a statutory *246restriction, may condition the formation of its contracts in any legal manner it chooses. Here it chose to condition the formation of a contract on the approval of third parties. This is perfectly permissible, and, in the case of state agencies entering multi-million dollar contracts, obviously prudent and desireable.1 See 1 Corbin, Contracts, § 61 *247(1963). No statute prevents the PLCB from conditioning its contract upon the occurrence of the approvals that were involved in this case.
Once it is determined that the case sounds in contract and should have been filed before the Board of Claims, the outcome of the case is clear, as, in fact, was stated by Commonwealth Court:
We are well satisfied that Shovel cannot prevail before the Board of Claims on a contract which purports on its face to require signatures which have not been affixed thereto.
Shovel Transfer and Storage, Inc. v. Simpson, 112 Pa. Cmwlth. 129, 133-34, 535 A.2d 251, 253 (1987). If Shovel cannot prevail before the Board of Claims, as it surely cannot, and as even Commonwealth Court acknowledges, I would decide the matter here as a matter of law and avoid the unnecessary exercise of remanding to the Board of Claims for the entry of an obvious determination.
[[Image here]]
*248It is a poor reflection on judicial efficiency when a disappointed state contractor is able to tie up two appellate courts and force an unnecessary remand by raising the red herring of statutory requirements which do not exist. We may not be able to prevent plaintiffs from distorting the nature of their claims, even outrageously, but we should not be hesitant to cut these distortions short in order to prevent an even greater waste of our resources.

.- The background of this dispute is that Shovel has been involved in various contractual arrangements with PLCB for the warehousing and distribution of liquor in southwestern Pennsylvania for approximately thirty years. In 1985 Shovel was providing these services at a location outside of Pittsburgh, but Shovel located a warehouse suitable for PLCB use in Pittsburgh and notified the PLCB. When the PLCB indicated that it was interested in the Pittsburgh warehouse, Mr. Shovel and his wife entered into a sales agreement to purchase the facility. Thereafter, members of the PLCB visited the Pittsburgh facility, and subsequently the board approved the relocation of its southwest distribution center to the new Pittsburgh location.
On October 1, 1986 the PLCB sent a draft contract to Shovel. However, when the board’s comptroller reviewed the contract, he raised questions about the propriety of awarding the contract without bids. The PLCB, nonetheless, sent the contract to Shovel for execution, indicating that he should return the contract for “Board and other agency approval’s [sic].” The PLCB Chairman and Chief Counsel then executed the contract and then submitted the contract to the PLCB comptroller for his approval. The Comptroller returned the contract with a request for clarification, citing Management Directive 250.3 and Manual 215.1, Contracting for Services, which require justification of the award of a sole source contract. The PLCB responded that they anticipated a cost saving by moving to Pittsburgh.
When further correspondence failed to resolve the matter, the PLCB met with the Budget Office. As a result of these meetings, the Budget Secretary also determined that the PLCB had failed to justify the award of this sole source contract:
As I have indicated in our prior discussions, the LCB very easily could have, and most certainly should have, at least issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) prior to negotiating a contract with Shovel____ Furthermore, the Board should certainly have provided written sole source justification and received approval from the Comptroller before awarding any contract to Shovel.
The failure of the Board to follow these accepted procedures, prior to negotiating and executing the contract with Shovel during the final months of 1986, is a practice which this Administration cannot condone. Accordingly, neither I nor the Comptroller are willing to sign this contract.
The contract which the Comptroller and Budget Secretary had refused to sign contained the following signature page:
Now, therefore, the parties intending to be legally bound hereby, have set forth their hands and seals this 10th day of November, 1986.
*247Presumably because the Comptroller and the Budget Secretary refused to sign the contract with Shovel, the PLCB on December 2, 1987 voted unanimously to issue a request for proposals for a Pittsburgh distribution facility. Shovel was invited to participate, and the PLCB received proposals from five contractors. General Commodities Distributing Company (GENCO) submitted a proposal which was $3.5 million less than the original Shovel contract, and on April 13, 1988 PLCB and GENCO executed a contract which was approved by the Comptroller and the Budget Secretary.