Opinion
No. 73-300
Decided November 21, 1973.
Courts — Actions — Issue moot — Appeal dismissed.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lake County.
Appellee city of Painesville advertised for bids for construction of a water treatment plant. The bidding procedures, adopted under the city's charter provisions and outlined in the specifications, required that only general bids for the entire project would be acceptable, and excluded individual bids for specific trades.
Bids submitted by appellants Euclid Electric Construction Company and other electrical contractors for the electrical work on the project were summarily rejected for non-compliance with the specifications announced by the city.
Appellant electrical contractors then brought this action for a declaratory judgment in the Court of Common Pleas for a judicial determination that the bidding procedures used by the city for the water treatment project were illegal, as a violation of R.C. 153.50 and 153.51; that the acts of the city and its city manager in entering into a contract with the successful bidder are null and void; and that the contract entered into is void.
It is appellants' contention, inter alia, that R.C. 153.50 and 153.51 are "general laws" and control the city in the awarding of bids and that, by virtue of the provisions of those statutes, all bidding on public projects must be by separate bids for each distinct trade or service.
The Court of Common Pleas denied the relief prayed for, holding that "by virtue of a charter adopted pursuant to Section 3 of Article XVIII of the Constitution," the city is not bound by the provisions of R.C. 153.50 and 153.51 but may adopt a different mode of competitive bidding.
Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court affirmed.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right and by reason of the allowance of appellants' motion to certify the record.
Mr. Albert L. Purola, for appellants.
Mr. Wayne R. Milburn, law director, for appellees.
At the time bids were submitted for the Painesville water treatment project, the appellants made no protest or complaint about the bidding procedures. They did nothing until after a contract had been awarded, when they instituted the present declaratory judgment action. No motion has been made by appellants to forestall the start or continuation of the project. Under the posture of this case, therefore, the disputed issues are moot. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Miner v. Witt, City Clerk (1910), 82 Ohio St. 237; State, ex rel. Schwab, v. Large (1956), 165 Ohio St. 8.
It is conceded that the contract for the construction of the water treatment plant has been awarded to a general contractor and that the work is going forward.
Appeal dismissed.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, P. BROWN and W. BROWN, JJ., concur.