Wastewater Plant Serv. Co., Inc. v. City of Long Beach
| Docket Number: | 2009-SA-00413-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-SA-00413-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-11-2010 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Solid waste contract - Section 31-7-13(r) - Request for proposal Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-17-2009 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Lawrence P. Bourgeois, Jr. Disposition: AFFIRMED CITY’S DECISION TO AWARD CONTRACT TO UTILITY PARTNERS Case Number: A2401-07-00012 |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Wastewater Plant Service Co., Inc. |
ROLAND F. SAMSON III |
|
|
| Appellee: | City of Long Beach, Mississippi, by and Through its Mayor and Aldermen, and Utility Partners, LLC | JAMES C. SIMPSON, JR., BRANDI C. SCHWARTZ, PAUL R. LAMBERT | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Solid waste contract - Section 31-7-13(r) - Request for proposal |
| Summary of the Facts: | Concerned with a reduction in revenues following Hurricane Katrina, the City of Long Beach voted to terminate its contract with Operations Technologies, Inc. for professional utility-management services. The City published a request for proposals in the local newspaper for the professional management, operation, and maintenance services of the City’s Public Works Department. Three businesses submitted proposals: Wastewater Plant Service Company, Inc.; OpTech; and Utility Partners, LLC. The City’s mayor and the Board of Aldermen voted to award the contract to UP. Wastewater filed a bill of exceptions in circuit court. UP filed a motion to intervene, which the trial court ultimately granted. The trial court affirmed the decision of the City to award the contract to UP. Wastewater appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Wastewater argues that the City failed to comply with section 31-7-13(r). In lieu of bidding requirements, section 31-7-13(r) sets out the specific proposal procedure for solid-waste contracts. According to section 31-7-13(r), the governing authority shall issue publicly a request for proposals concerning the specifications for such services which shall be advertised in the same manner as provided in this section for seeking bids for purchases. After publishing the request for proposals, the governing authority then selects the most qualified proposal on the basis of price, technology and other relevant factors and from such proposals. According to the Attorney General, a contract between a municipality and a company to manage the city waste-water-treatment plant, to maintain and repair water and sewer lines, pumps, wells, etc., to read meters and to assist the water department with customer relations falls within the ambit of section 31-7-13(r). Clearly, the contract between the City and UP falls within the dictates of section 31-7-13(r). The City followed the procedures set out for requests for proposals. The City published a request for proposals, in which specific terms and conditions were listed pursuant to statute. The City selected UP as the most qualified bidder, negotiated with UP, and then entered into a contract with UP. Wastewater also argues that the City did not select the most qualified proposal on the basis of price, technology, and other relevant factors. Wastewater asserts that having the lowest-price proposal should automatically win it the contract. However, according to the ranking forms, UP consistently had better rankings in all categories than Wastewater except for price. Clearly, the Board found UP better suited in the following areas: understanding of the requirements and experience and reputation. Ultimately, the City was able to negotiate a fee lower than in UP’s initial proposal. Wastewater has failed to show that the City’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, discriminatory, or without substantial evidentiary basis. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
