Baukol Builders, Inc. v. County of Grand Forks

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the dismissal of Baukol Builders' challenge to Grand Forks County's award of a public construction contract to a higher-dollar bidder. The court held that the completion date was a stated bidding criterion and that the applicable competitive-bidding statutes permitted the County to consider factors beyond the lowest dollar bid. The court also upheld the denial of Baukol Builders' post-trial motions and request for attorney fees.

Holdings

1. A bidder that submitted a timely bid and was not shown to have been harmed by the early opening of bids could not challenge the County's failure to comply with the statutory twenty-one-day publication period.
2. The County did not use unstated or unwritten criteria because the bid documents expressly required bidders to state their proposed completion dates, making completion time a stated item of competition; consideration of the resulting revenue and interest implications was necessarily related to that stated criterion.
3. N.D.C.C. §§ 48-01.1-02 and 48-01.1-07, construed together, authorized a public entity to exercise some discretion in awarding a contract to the lowest responsible and lowest and best bidder; they did not require selection of the lowest dollar bidder.
4. The County did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously in awarding the contract to Construction Engineers.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for a new trial and renewed post-trial relief based on allegedly newly discovered evidence.
6. Baukol Builders was not entitled to attorney fees under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-31 or Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., because the County acted in good faith and there was no qualifying bad-faith conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Baukol Builders was barred from challenging the County's failure to publish the bid notice at least twenty-one days before opening bids after submitting a timely bid.
2. Whether the County used unstated or unwritten criteria by considering proposed completion dates, anticipated prisoner-housing revenue, and interest savings in awarding the contract.
3. Whether N.D.C.C. §§ 48-01.1-02 and 48-01.1-07 authorized the County to exercise discretion in selecting the lowest responsible and lowest and best bidder rather than the lowest dollar bidder.
4. Whether the County abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, capriciously, fraudulently, or collusively in awarding the contract to Construction Engineers.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Baukol Builders' post-trial motions based on allegedly newly discovered evidence.
6. Whether Baukol Builders was entitled to attorney fees under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-31 or the inherent-power doctrine recognized in Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.

Disposition

affirmed