|
No constitutionally protected interest in loss of award of a competitively bid public contract.
As the Court explained, any constitutional challenge under 42 U.S.C. §1983 requires the existence of a constitutionally protected interest. Because Winton had not been awarded the new transit contract, and then had it revoked, Winton had to prove that the county abused its “substantial discretion” in awarding the contract to another.
Judge Dlott found there was no abuse of discretion in the county’s selection procedures because the request for proposals contained discernable and objective criteria which fit the “lowest and best bidder” standard in Ohio Revised Code §307.90. The Court found no abuse of discretion in waiving irregularities in proposals that did not materially change the proposals because the county could and did legally reserve its right to waive any informalities in its request for proposals. Finally, the court determined there was no abuse of discretion by engaging in post-award negotiations with the successful proposer.
|
|
The court found first, that no property interest in a public bid extends beyond when the contract is awarded, and second, that even if such protected interest existed, any negotiations conducted by the county did not materially or erroneously alter the terms of the request for proposals. Judge Dlott recognized post-award negotiations often are necessary and occur to address unforeseen events.
The county’s award was therefore, “neither arbitrary nor irrational, but rather was based on a careful consideration of proposals submitted by each bidder based upon the factors set forth in the RFP.”
No constitutionally protected interest in the mere opportunity to compete for a contract.
Judge Dlott not only dismissed the constitutional due process claims, but also dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim. The court found that Winton had not suffered any actual injury, and therefore, lacked standing. BACK | MORE
|
|
