Opinion
Page 602a
190 Cal.App.4th 602a (2010) __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. G041688 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Third Division September 30, 2010Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00107122
SILLS, P. J.
THE COURT— The opinion filed August 31, 2010 (187 Cal.App.4th 1425; 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 378), is hereby modified in the following ways:
(1) On page 21 of the slip opinion, in footnote 16 [187 Cal.App.4th 1444, advance reports, fn. 16, 2d par., line 2], delete the word “only” in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
(2) On page 33 of the slip opinion [187 Cal.App.4th 1455, advance reports, 3d full par.], delete the last full paragraph on the page and in its stead substitute the following: “The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the school district had incorrectly rejected the lowest bidder’s bid as nonresponsive when the bidder had really been rejected as nonresponsible. As such, the lowest bidder was entitled to at least a ‘due process hearing’ on the purported nonresponsibility. (D.H. Williams, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 772.)”
(3) On page 33 of the slip opinion [187 Cal.App.4th 1455, advance reports, 3d full par.], after the citation to D.H. Williams just referenced, insert the following new footnote :
. While the appellate court agreed with the trial court on the responsiveness-responsibility issue, it reversed the judgment requiring the contract be awarded to the lowest bidder, and directed the trial judge to order the school district to offer the contract to the lowest bidder within 15 days, unless before the 15 days were up the District provided notice to the lowest bidder that its deemed it not responsible and offered the lowest bidder a due process hearing on that determination. (D.H. Williams, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 772.) The D.H. Williams court reasoned that in requiring the school district to award the contract to the lowest bidder directly, the trial court deprived the school district of the opportunity to determine whether the lowest bidder really was responsible. Obviously if not, the school district would be under no obligation to award it the contract.
Page 602b
In the present case, the District has made no request that, in the event of reversal, the trial court should be ordered to require the District to, as in D.H. Williams, first provide notice that Great West is deemed not responsible and then offer Great West a due process hearing on that determination. Nor do we have any need to opine on any possible future due process hearing on remand after reversal. That question is, at this moment, premature.
These modifications do not affect the judgment.
WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, J. IKOLA, J.