Precision Communications, Inc. v. Hinds County
| Docket Number: | 2009-CC-01720-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CC-01720-COA ; 2009-CT-01720-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-03-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Request for proposals - Stay of appeal - Authority of circuit court - Remand for reconsideration Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, P.J. Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-07-2009 Appealed from: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: Dismissed Precision Communications' Appeal as Moot Case Number: 251-08-940-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Precision Communications, Inc. |
ROBERT L. GIBBS, KATIE LOFTON WALLACE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Hinds County, Mississippi | CRYSTAL WISE MARTIN | ||
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: | Request for proposals - Stay of appeal - Authority of circuit court - Remand for reconsideration |
| Summary of the Facts: | During April 2008, numerous tornadoes moved through Jackson. Many Hinds County residents reported that they did not hear existing early-warning sirens. The Hinds County Board of Supervisors later determined that many of the early-warning sirens were in disrepair. Consequently, HCBS authorized Larry Fisher, the Hinds County Emergency Operations Manager, to apply for a grant for funds to repair or replace the non-functioning early-warning sirens. Fisher applied for grants through the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency with funds supplied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the United States Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, Jim McCreary of Precision Communications, Inc. helped HCBS apply for grant funds by providing estimates for early-warning systems. McCreary’s estimates were included in HCBS’ grant application. HCBS published a notice that it was requesting proposals to replace up to fifty-one broken and/or outdated emergency weather sirens. HCBS’ notice stated that parties interested in placing bids were to deliver sealed specification responses without pricing information by August 22, 2008. HCBS’ notice further stated that an electronic bidding process would begin on August 27, 2008. PC hand-delivered sealed specifications without pricing and later participated in an online bidding process conducted by BidBridge, LLC. Seven bids were presented to HCBS. HCBS subsequently held a special meeting, and according to BidBridge’s recommendation, HCBS voted to award the contract to Emergency Dispatch Notification Systems. PC filed a “notice of appeal and request for stay” in the circuit court requesting that the circuit court stay HCBS’ award of the contract to EDNS until after the circuit court had ruled on PC’s bill of exceptions. The circuit court denied PC’s motion to stay. HCBS and EDNS then entered into a contract for the installation of ten of the fifty-one weather sirens. HCBS moved to dismiss PC’s appeal, arguing that it was moot because HCBS had “chosen to rebid the work that is the subject of this appeal.” PC responded and argued that HCBS did not have the authority to rebid the project. PC also argued that the circuit court did not have the authority to dismiss PC’s appeal on the basis that HCBS had decided to rebid the project. Finally, PC requested that the circuit court stay HCBS’ attempt to rebid the project. Shortly thereafter, PC filed its bill of exceptions to HCBS’ decision to award the contract to EDNS. The circuit court entered an order denying HCBS’ motion to dismiss PC’s appeal. However, the circuit court also imposed a stay of PC’s appeal and remanded the matter to HCBS with instructions to reconsider the previous bids. HCBS later informed the circuit court that it had “voted to reject all of the bids and rebid the award for early warning sirens.” The circuit court filed its order lifting its stay and dismissing PC’s appeal. PC appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | PC argues that the circuit court did not have the authority to stay its appeal and remand the matter to HCBS so that it could reconsider the bids. On remand, HCBS opted to reject all bids and readvertise the project for new bids. PC argues that the circuit court was obligated to either affirm or reverse HCBS’ judgment. PC further argues that, as set forth in section 11-51-75, in the event that the circuit court reversed the judgment of HCBS, the court was required to “render such judgment as the board or municipal authorities ought to have rendered and certify the same to the board of supervisors.” The circuit court did not order HCBS to reopen the request-for-proposals process. Instead, the circuit court remanded the matter to HCBS for reconsideration. In other words, the circuit court gave HCBS an opportunity to decide that it would reject all previous bids and reopen the request-for-proposals process. There are numerous instances in which Mississippi appellate courts have remanded matters to fact-finders for reconsideration. However, it is uncommon to remand a matter while staying an appeal. There can be no doubt that the circuit court essentially gave HCBS an opportunity at a “second bite at the apple.” Be that as it may, any error that resulted from the circuit court’s decision to remand for reconsideration of the matter by HCBS is harmless because the circuit court could have ordered HCBS to reject all bids and reopen the request-for-proposals process. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court finding that PC’s appeal was moot is affirmed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
