Opinion
Argued September 10, 1973
October 3, 1973.
Public contracts — Specifications — Vagueness — Protection of site — Taxpayer suits — Fair and uniform competitive bidding.
1. A specification in a contract advertised for bids by a public agency requiring a successful bidder to provide protection of property at the construction site by watchman, if necessary, is not too vague and uncertain to provide a common standard for all bidders. [240]
2. A taxpayers suit may be brought to insure that specifications offered to the bidding public by a public agency are compatible with principles of open, fair and uniform competitive bidding but may not be brought for the purpose of redrafting a public contract. [240]
Argued September 10, 1973, before President Judge BOWMAN and Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT.
Original jurisdiction, No. 796 C.D. 1972, in case of J. Leon Altemose and Roger D. Altemose v. The Pennsylvania Higher Education Facilities Authority and W. Stuart Helm, Executive Director, and Northeastern Junior College. Complaint in equity in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania seeking to enjoin the awarding of a public contract. Preliminary injunction denied. Complaint dismissed. 7 Pa. Commw. 596. Exceptions filed. Held: Exceptions dismissed. Final decree entered.
John C. Butera, with him Clarke F. Hess, Charles B. Zwally, Butera Detwiler and Shearer, Mette and Hoerner, for plaintiffs.
Richard L. Kearns, Chief Counsel, for defendants.
J. Leon Altemose and Roger D. Altemose (Altemose) filed exceptions to the Opinion and Decree Nisi of this Court reported as Altemose v. The Pennsylvania Higher Educational Facilities Authority, 7 Pa. Commw. 596, 300 A.2d 827 (1973). We there dismissed Altemose's complaint in equity and held that specifications or conditions in contracts advertised for bids by a public agency must not be so vague or uncertain as not to provide a common standard for bidders. We further concluded that a contract condition requiring a successful bidder on a public contract to provide protection by watchmen of the property at the construction site, if necessary, was a proper specification and not incompatible with the principle of open, fair, and uniform competitive bidding.
We have carefully considered Altemose's exceptions and find them to be without merit. Altemose now complains that we made mention in our opinion of the labor problems encountered by Altemose Construction Company, although the evidence relative to such labor problems was introduced solely by Altemose Nevertheless, we are satisfied that our Decree Nisi was not based on a consideration of such labor unrest but rather on a determination that the challenged specifications were not too vague and uncertain to provide a common standard for all bidders.
Altemose further contends that we failed to consider alternate methods of providing security for protection of property at the construction site. However, a taxpayer suit is not for the purpose of redrafting public contracts but rather to make certain that the specifications offered to the bidding public are compatible with the principle of open, fair and uniform competitive bidding.
Accordingly, we make the following
ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 1973, the exceptions filed to the Opinion and Decree Nisi dated February 28, 1973 are dismissed, the Decree Nisi is affirmed, and the Prothonotary shall enter the Decree Nisi as a final decree.