Opinion
No. 4-118 / 03-1006
April 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sherman W. Phipps, Judge.
MacDonald Letter Service, Inc. appeals from the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss. AFFIRMED.
Terrance Swanson and Dallas Janssen, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Grant Dugdale, Assistant Attorney General.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
MacDonald Letter Service, Inc. (MacDonald) appeals from the district court's grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
In December 2002, MacDonald submitted a bid for the 2003-2006 Iowa legislative printing contract. Although MacDonald's was the lowest of the four bids submitted, Michael Marshall, Secretary of the Iowa Senate, and Margaret Thompson, Chief Clerk of the Iowa House of Representatives, awarded the contract to Garner Printing.
On January 10, 2003, MacDonald filed suit requesting "equitable relief from the arbitrary and capricious and excessively expensive exercise of the administrative discretion by [Marshall and Thompson] in the awarding of a contract for printing services." Specifically, MacDonald requested an injunction preventing Marshall and Thompson from entering into the contract with Garner Printing. Additionally, MacDonald requested a writ of mandamus requiring the defendants to award the contract to MacDonald. MacDonald subsequently withdrew its request for a temporary injunction, and Marshall and Thompson filed a motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion, concluding MacDonald, as an unsuccessful bidder on a government contract, did not have standing to challenge the bidding process. The district court further concluded that a writ of mandamus was not an appropriate remedy in MacDonald's action.
MacDonald filed a motion to reconsider and enlarge. After a hearing, the district court enlarged its findings, but again dismissed MacDonald's action. MacDonald appeals, alleging (1) an unsuccessful bidder on a government contract does have standing in equity to challenge the bidding process; (2) a writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy under the circumstances of this case; and (3) dismissal of its claim violates its rights under the Iowa and the United States constitutions.
Standard of Review and Error Preservation.
Although we normally review actions in equity de novo, Iowa R. App. P. 6.4, we review decisions on motions to dismiss for errors at law. Barkema v. Williams Pipeline Co., 666 N.W.2d 612, 614 (Iowa 2003). Because MacDonald failed to argue to the district court that the dismissal of its claim violates its rights under the Iowa and the United States constitutions, we will not address this argument for the first time on appeal. Kroblin v. RDR Motels, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 430, 434 (Iowa 1984).
Standing.
While conceding it does not have standing at law, MacDonald contends Iowa law permits an unsuccessful bidder to challenge the bidding process in equity.
However, our supreme court has concluded an unsuccessful bidder lacks standing to bring an action in equity. Elview Constr. Co. v. North Scott Comm. Sch. Dist., 373 N.W.2d 138, 141 (Iowa 1985). "The reasoning for Elview's standing decision is that the truly damaged party is the taxpayer, not one who has lost a bid through some claimed error." Garling Constr., Inc. v. City of Shellsburg, 641 N.W.2d 522, 523 (Iowa 2002).
MacDonald relies on language in Garling noting that while an unsuccessful bidder does not have a cause of action at law, "[a]n injunction, mandamus, or declaratory judgment might still be available." Id. at 524. MacDonald urges us to conclude that this language in Garling indicates our supreme court intended to make available actions in equity for unsuccessful bidders. However, we conclude our supreme court, in Garling, reaffirmed the holding in Elview precluding suits in equity by unsuccessful bidders, despite the dicta regarding the possible availability of injunctions, writs of mandamus, or declaratory judgments. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of MacDonald's cause of action.
Writ of Mandamus.
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy which is not used to establish rights but rather to enforce rights that already exist. Hewitt v. Ryan, 356 N.W.2d 230, 233 (Iowa 1984); Stith v. Civil Serv. Comm. of Des Moines, 159 N.W.2d 806, 808 (Iowa 1968). Although the writ can be used to compel an inferior tribunal to act, it cannot control its discretion. Hewitt, 356 N.W.2d at 233; Stith, 159 N.W.2d at 808. We agree with the district court's conclusion that MacDonald is both asking the court to establish rights rather than enforce rights that already exist and control the exercise of discretion of an inferior tribunal. Accordingly, we conclude a writ of mandamus is unavailable under these circumstances and affirm.