Court Opinion

ID: 6792654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-21 01:13:14.721815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:03:04.206789
License: Public Domain

Lundberg Stratton, J.,
concurring.
{¶ 20} I agree that Cleveland Construction, Inc. did not have a property interest in the drywall contract awarded by the city of Cincinnati. I write to emphasize that I reach that conclusion on the narrow facts of this case. State law mandates only that public contracts of this magnitude be awarded to the “lowest and best bidder.” R.C. 735.05. The Cincinnati Municipal Code also requires the city to select the “lowest and best bidder,” but provides the city with broad discretion to “reject any bid for any reason.” Cincinnati Municipal Code 321-37 and 321-43. In addition, the city’s bid package gave the city broad discretion to reject a bid. Based upon these explicit factors in this case, I must concur with the majority. However, in cases involving other cities and under other circumstances, the outcome may be different.
{¶ 21} The Cincinnati City Council, in accordance with the city code, established the process for awarding city contracts, and the city of Cincinnati afforded broad discretion to determine the “lowest and best bidder” for the city. “Generally, courts in this state should be reluctant to substitute their judgment for that of city officials in determining which party is the ‘lowest and best bidder.’ ” Cedar Bay Constr., Inc. v. Fremont (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 19, 21, 552 N.E.2d 202. However, such broad discretion without real parameters also may give rise to *289opportunities for abuse, unfairness, or partiality in the bidding process. Yet a bidder in such a case faces insurmountable obstacles in challenging the bid because the discretion is so broad. Nevertheless, efforts to improve the city’s bidding procedures must be directed toward the city’s governing body or to the General Assembly to establish stricter requirements in the bidding process under R.C. 735.05. Therefore, I reluctantly concur.
Statman, Harris & Eyrich, L.L.C., W. Kelly Lundrigan, and Elizabeth L. Hutton, for appellee.
Julia L. McNeil, Cincinnati City Solicitor, and Richard Ganulin and Mary Frances Clark, Assistant City Solicitors, for appellant.
Stephen L. Byron, Adam J. Rosplock, and John Gotherman, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Municipal League.
Thomas R. Winters, First Assistant Attorney General, William P. Marshall, Solicitor General, and Susan M. Sullivan and Ara G. Mekhjian, Assistant Solicitors, urging reversal for amicus curiae state of Ohio.
Michael R. Gareau & Associates Co., L.P.A., and David M. Gareau, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation.
Ross, Brittain & Schonburg Co., L.P.A., and Alan G. Ross, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Northern Ohio Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors.