Such a statute affords the awarding body wide discretion. Budd v. Board of County Commissioners (1939), 216 Ind. 35, 38, 22 N.E.2d 973, 975; Ness v. Board of Commissioners (1912), 178 Ind. 221, 235, 98 N.E. 1002, 1003, on petition for rehearing; Boseker v. Board of Commissioners (1882), 88 Ind. 267, 268; Lee v. Browning (1932), 96 Ind. App. 282, 284, 182 N.E. 550, 551 trans. denied; Eigenmann v. Board of Commissioners (1913), 53 Ind. App. 1, 3, 101 N.E. 38, 39; 64 Am.Jur.2d Public Work and Contracts sec. 67 (1972).
For some time, we have recognized that the awarding of contracts to transport school children is not a purely ministerial act but requires the exercise of discretion or judgment in ascertainment of the lowest responsible bidder. See Lee v. Browning, 96 Ind. App. 282, 284, 182 N.E. 550, 551 (1932). The law requires school board members to determine "responsibleness" from all of the evidence at their disposal.
". . . for the purpose of enabling such . . . trustee[s] . . . to ascertain and determine which of the bidders submitting bids for the performance of any such public work is, in the judgment of such . . . trustee[s] . . ., the lowest and/or best bidder and to exercise intelligently the discretion hereby conferred on such . . . trustee[s] . . . each bidder shall be required to submit under oath with and as part of his bid a statement of his experience, his proposed plan for performing such work and the equipment which he has available for the performance of such work and a financial statement." In Lee v. Browning (1932), 96 Ind. App. 282, 182 N.E. 550, in which trustees of a school were required by law to award a school busing contract to the "lowest or best responsible bidders," many other factors were felt to be significant: "Aside from financial responsibility it has been held that that ability and capacity, capital, character, and reputation, competency and efficiency, energy, experience, facilities, faithfulness and fidelity, fraud or unfairness in previous conduct, honesty, judgment, promptness, quality of previous work, suitability to the particular task, are proper elements to be taken into consideration in determining the responsibility of a bidder on public contracts."
In making these decisions, the administrative body must consider many factors including capital, reputation, experience, honesty, judgment, promptness, quality of work product and suitability for the task at hand. Id. (citing Lee v. Browning, 96 Ind. App. 282, 285, 182 N.E. 550, 551 (1933)). Indiana courts have permitted taxpayers to bring injunctive actions to enjoin the award of a contract through a bid procedure.
Where, however, the board or administrative body is vested with discretionary power to enter into contracts pursuant to competitive bidding as, for example, the right to determine 3. the best or most responsible bidder, as well as the lowest bid, the courts will not disturb an honest exercise of such discretion. This must be true because, as pointed out in Lee v. Browning (1933), 96 Ind. App. 282, 285, 286, 182 N.E. 550, "ability and capacity, capital, character and reputation, competency and efficiency, energy, experience, facilities, faithfulness and fidelity, fraud or unfairness in previous conduct, honesty, judgment, promptness, quality of previous work, suitability to the particular task, are proper elements to be taken into consideration in determining the responsibility of a bidder on public contracts." In the determination of these factors, courts will not undertake to set up their judgment against the judgment of the responsible administrative agencies.
ies renders the court powerless to grant injunctive relief. 32 C. J. 57; Porter v. Investors' Syndicate, 286 U.S. 461, 52 S.Ct. 617, 76 L.Ed. 1226; Ashurst v. Ashurst, 175 Ala. 667, 57 So. 442; Teeter v. City of Los Angeles, 209 Cal. 685, 290 P. 11; MacDonald v. Board of Street Com'rs, 268 Mass. 288, 167 N.E. 417; Chicago, R.I. P. R. Co. v. State Highway Comm., 322 Mo. 419, 17 S.W.(2d) 535. The court will not interfere with matters left to the discretion of administrative bodies. High on Inj. (4th Ed.) 1240-1311; 24 R. C. L. 24; Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475, 18 L.Ed. 437; Board of Education of City of Cincinnati v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 211, 13 Am. Rep. 233; O'Connor v. Hendrick, 184 N.Y. 421, 77 N.E. 612, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 402, 6 Ann. Cas. 432; Mangum v. Keith, 147 Ga. 603, 95 S.E. 1; Davidson-Nicholson Co. v. Pound, 147 Ga. 447, 94 S.E. 560; Von Herberg v. City of Seattle, 157 Wn. 141, 288 P. 646, 70 A.L.R. 417; Merryman v. School Dist., 43 Wyo. 376, 5 P.(2d) 267, 86 A.L.R. 1181; Lee v. Browning, 96 Ind. App. 282, 182 N.E. 550; Clay v. Ind. School Dist., 187 Iowa, 89, 174 N.W. 47. BOULDIN, Justice (after stating the case as above).
" 14 Am. Jur., Counties, ยง 33, p. 205. This rule has been recognized and followed by both this court and the Supreme Court in the following recent cases: Lee v. Browning (1933), 96 Ind. App. 282, 182 N.E. 550; Budd v. Board of Co. Comrs. of St. Joseph County (1939), 216 Ind. 35, 22 N.E.2d 973. Stated more broadly, the rule, as deducted from a long 4. list of authorities collected from many states, is found in an annotation in 38 L.R.A. (N.S.), p. 655.