ILNews

DTCI: Public works statute tested

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
By Chris Drewry
drewry-christopher.jpg Drewry

Publicly funded construction projects in Indiana have long been governed by statutes that set forth the procedures by which certain public entities must select the contractors performing the work. The purpose of these statutes is to “safeguard the public against fraud, favoritism, graft, extravagance, improvidence and corruption, and to insure honest competition for the best work or supplies at the lowest reasonable cost.” Angel v. Behnke, 337 N.E.2d 503, 509 (Ind. App. 1975). These design-bid-build statutes generally provide that public construction contracts exceeding certain threshold dollar amounts must be awarded through a competitive bidding process.

At the local government level, public works projects procured by any political subdivision or agency are governed by Title 36 of the Indiana Code, specifically Ind. Code § 36-1-12-1 et seq. This is in contrast to state projects procured by the Indiana Department of Administration under Title 4, other state projects procured under Title 5, or projects procured by the Indiana Department of Transportation under Title 8. The Title 36 public works statute provides that “all public work performed or contracted for by … political subdivisions … and … their agencies” shall be subject to specific bidding procedures and must comply with numerous regulations and specifications. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-1(a).

For instance, contracts for the construction or renovation of school buildings typically must comply with the competitive bidding requirements applicable to public works construction contracts. See Brooks v. Gariup Constr. Co., 722 N.E.2d 834, 839 (Ind. App. 1999), trans. denied; Sch. City of Gary, Ind. v. Cont’l Elec. Co., 273 N.E.2d 293, 296 (Ind. App. 1971). See also 2008 Ind. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 5 (2008) (citing Ind. Code §§ 36-1-2-10 and -13) (“School corporations are political subdivisions for purposes of the public work statute.”)

The types of covered public works projects include the construction, reconstruction, alteration or renovation of a public building, airport facility or other structure that is paid for out of a public fund or out of a special assessment. It also includes the construction, alteration or repair of a highway, street, alley, bridge, sewer, drain or other improvement that is paid for out of a public fund or out of a special assessment. The Title 36 public works statute applies regardless of whether the property upon which the project is to be constructed is actually owned or leased by the political subdivision or agency. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-1.

The Alva Electric case

The coverage and application of the Title 36 public works statute came into question in the very recent case of Alva Electric, Inc. v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp., 2014 WL 1716563 (Ind. 2014). In that case, the Indiana Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the specific procedure employed by the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation to renovate one of its buildings violated the Title 36 public works statute requiring competitive bidding.

In 2010, EVSC decided to convert a former warehouse building into administrative offices. However, EVSC subsequently determined that it had insufficient funds to complete or publicly bid the renovations. Thereafter, EVSC contacted contractor Industrial Contractors Inc. about renovating the building and accepting payment for the renovations over time. Specifically, EVSC proposed a plan whereby it would convey the building to a private nonprofit entity (the “EVSC Foundation”) and that entity would then contract with ICI for the renovations without following the competitive bid process.

In early 2011, a group of Evansville-based contractors initiated a lawsuit against EVSC and the EVSC Foundation seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for an alleged violation of the public bidding statutes under Title 36.

[For purposes of this article, an analysis of the additional claim relating to an alleged violation of Indiana’s Antitrust Act and the court’s discussion of it have been omitted.]

The contractors moved for summary judgment, requesting the trial court declare, among other things, that the project violated public bidding laws, and asking the trial court to void all contracts constituting the transaction and to enjoin any further expenditure of public funds on the project. EVSC and the EVSC Foundation likewise moved for summary judgment to uphold their procurement plan. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the contractors’ motion for summary judgment and determined that the transactions did not constitute a violation of Title 36. The trial court concluded that (1) the EVSC Foundation was the title holder of the building at the time of the renovations, (2) the EVSC Foundation was signatory on the construction agreement with ICI, and (3) payment to ICI, although originating from EVSC, was made from the EVSC Foundation’s bank account.

On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded the project did indeed violate the public bidding laws under Title 36 and therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment. See Alva Elec., Inc. v. Evansville Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 984 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. App. 2013). EVSC and the EVSC Foundation subsequently sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. However, on transfer, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals’ opinion holding that the scheme used by EVSC and the EVSC Foundation violated the state’s public building statutes under Title 36.

In so doing, the Indiana Supreme Court clarified that its holding should not be construed to mean that all (or even most) contracts entered into by private entities like the EVSC Foundation for the ultimate benefit of and in cooperation with a political subdivision like EVSC necessarily run afoul of the public work statutes. Rather, in this particular case, the EVSC Foundation’s actions related to the project were clearly such that it was acting on behalf of EVSC, given EVSC’s heavy involvement in and control over the renovation project from its inception to its completion. As such, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals holding on the public bidding violation and reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Overview of the competitive bidding process

With the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Alva Electric, the state’s public works statute and competitive bidding laws were upheld. Pursuant to Section 4 of the Title 36 public works statutes, any local government project (with some exceptions) in excess of $150,000 is going to be covered by the statute. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(a)(1). On those projects, the political subdivision or agency must comply with certain procedures.

These procedures are set forth in Section 4 of the statute. To start, the political subdivision or agency must prepare general plans and specifications describing the kind of public work required, while avoiding specifications that might unduly limit competition, file such plans and specifications, and then publish notice in accordance with Indiana Code § 5-3-1 calling for sealed proposals for the public work needed. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(b)(1) through (3). The notice must specify the place where the plans and specifications are on file and the date fixed for receiving bids. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(b)(4). Depending on the size of the public works project, the period between the date of first publication and the date of receiving bids is limited to no more than either six weeks (if the estimated cost of the project is less than $25 million) or 10 weeks (if project cost is greater than $25 million). Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(b)(5).

With respect to the requirements of bidders on a given project, the political subdivision or agency must require the submission of a financial statement, a statement of experience, a proposed plan or plans for performing the public work, and the equipment that the bidder has available for the performance of the public work. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(b)(6). In addition, the political subdivision or agency cannot require a bidder to submit a bid before the meeting at which bids are to be received. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(b)(7). The meeting for receiving the bids must be open to the public, and all bids received shall be opened publicly and read aloud at the time and place designated and not before. Id.

Alternatively, small projects undertaken by a political subdivision or one of its agencies that are estimated to cost less than $150,000 may be constructed by the subdivision’s own employees so long as the subdivision regularly employs persons capable of performing such work. Similarly, if a project is estimated to cost less than $100,000 and is for a local board of aviation or is estimated to cost less than $50,000 and is for a municipal or county hospital, the project may be completed using their own work forces or by following abbreviated procedures for the award. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-3.

Awarding the contract

Under the Title 36 competitive bidding provisions, following the submission of bids, the political subdivision or agency is required to award the contract for public work or improvements to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(b)(8). Alternatively, the political subdivision or agency can reject all bids submitted. Id. If the political subdivision or agency awards the contract to a bidder other than the lowest bidder, the board must state in the minutes or memoranda, at the time the award is made, the factors used to determine which bidder is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder and to justify the award. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(b)(9); Koester Contracting, Inc. v. Board of Com’rs of Warrick County, 619 N.E.2d 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993).

For a bidder to be considered for award of the contract, its bid must be responsive. This is the initial determination by the reviewing owner. In determining whether a bidder is responsive, the political subdivision may consider whether the bidder has submitted a bid or quote that conforms in all material respects to the specifications, whether the bidder has submitted a bid that complies specifically with the invitation to bid and the instructions to bidders, and whether the bidder has complied with all applicable statutes, ordinances, resolutions or rules pertaining to the award of a public contract. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(b)(10).

Once the pool of responsive bidders is determined, the next determination is which one is lowest. This is a price-driven analysis. Once the lowest responsive bidder is determined, the third criteria for award must be met. This is whether that bidder is a responsible bidder. In determining whether a bidder is responsible, the political subdivision or agency may consider the ability and capacity of the bidder to perform the work; the integrity, character and reputation of the bidder; and the competence and experience of the bidder. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(b)(11). It is worth noting that there are no degrees of responsibility – it is a threshold litmus test. A bidder is either responsible or it is not. If it is determined to be responsible and is the lowest responsive bidder, it should receive the award. The fact that the awarding agency or owner believes that another bidder may be better or more responsible does not change this result.

In addition, the bidder is required to submit an affidavit that the bidder has not entered into a combination or agreement relative to the price to be bid by a person, to prevent a person from bidding or to induce a person to refrain from bidding. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4(b)(12). The affidavit must also state that the bidder’s bid was made without reference to any other bid. Id.

Also, every bidder must also submit bid security in an amount of not more than 10 percent of the bid amount. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-4.5. In addition, the successful bidder must post a payment bond (see Ind. Code § 36-1-12-13.1) and performance bond (see Ind. Code § 36-1-12-14) on projects of value greater than $200,000. Contracts greater than $200,000 must also contain provisions for a retainage escrow. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-14.

Finally, within 60 days after bids are opened, the political subdivision must award and enter into a contract and provide the successful bidder with notice to proceed. Ind. Code § 36-1-12-6. However, if the project is to be financed through general obligation bonds, this timeframe is extended to 90 days. If the project is financed through revenue bonds, the project must be awarded, a contract must be entered into and a notice to proceed issued within 150 days after bids are opened. Within 15 days before the expiration of any of these dates, the successful contractor may notify the subdivision of its intent to withdraw its bid or extend the time for the award. Id.

Conclusion

Indiana’s competitive bidding statutes are an integral part of public works projects, be it Title 36 local public works or one of the other public works related statutes (under Titles 4, 5, or 8). There are a number of requirements that protect the public and satisfy the purpose for which these statutes were adopted, that being to “safeguard the public against fraud, favoritism, graft, extravagance, improvidence and corruption, and to insure honest competition for the best work or supplies at the lowest reasonable cost.” Behnke, 337 N.E.2d at 509. The Indiana Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alva Electric reinforces the stability of the public works statutes and ensures that government-funded construction projects will continue to be protected by the statutory competitive bidding requirements. In a construction environment in which alternative delivery systems are being considered, such as design-build, multi-prime construction management through an agency construction-manager or the newly enacted construction-manager-at-risk delivery model, the judicial reaffirmation of the ongoing viability of the traditional design-bid-build project delivery process is well timed.•

Chris Drewry is a partner with the construction law firm of Drewry Simmons Vornehm LLP, with offices in Carmel, Indianapolis and Merrillville, Ind. Chris is the chair of DTCI’s Construction Law Section and focuses his practice on construction law and litigation as well as labor and employment law. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

  2. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/17/governments-struggling-to-retain-trust-of-citizens-global-survey-finds Back to the Founders! MAGA!

  3. Science is showing us the root of addiction is the lack of connection (with people). Criminalizing people who are lonely is a gross misinterpretation of what data is revealing and the approach we must take to combat mental health. Harsher crimes from drug dealers? where there is a demand there is a market, so make it legal and encourage these citizens to be functioning members of a society with competitive market opportunities. Legalize are "drugs" and quit wasting tax payer dollars on frivolous incarceration. The system is destroying lives and doing it in the name of privatized profits. To demonize loneliness and destroy lives in the land of opportunity is not freedom.

  4. Good luck, but as I have documented in three Hail Mary's to the SCOTUS, two applications (2007 & 2013),a civil rights suit and my own kicked-to-the-curb prayer for mandamus. all supported in detailed affidavits with full legal briefing (never considered), the ISC knows that the BLE operates "above the law" (i.e. unconstitutionally) and does not give a damn. In fact, that is how it was designed to control the lawyers. IU Law Prof. Patrick Baude blew the whistle while he was Ind Bar Examiner President back in 1993, even he was shut down. It is a masonic system that blackballs those whom the elite disdain. Here is the basic thrust:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing When I asked why I was initially denied, the court's foremost jester wrote back that the ten examiners all voted, and I did not gain the needed votes for approval (whatever that is, probably ten) and thus I was not in .. nothing written, no explanation, just go away or appeal ... and if you appeal and disagree with their system .. proof positive you lack character and fitness. It is both arbitrary and capricious by its very design. The Hoosier legal elites are monarchical minded, and rejected me for life for ostensibly failing to sufficiently respect man's law (due to my stated regard for God's law -- which they questioned me on, after remanding me for a psych eval for holding such Higher Law beliefs) while breaking their own rules, breaking federal statutory law, and violating federal and state constitutions and ancient due process standards .. all well documented as they "processed me" over many years.... yes years ... they have few standards that they will not bulldoze to get to the end desired. And the ISC knows this, and they keep it in play. So sad, And the fed courts refuse to do anything, and so the blackballing show goes on ... it is the Indy way. My final experience here: https://www.scribd.com/document/299040062/Brown-ind-Bar-memo-Pet-cert I will open my files to anyone interested in seeing justice dawn over Indy. My cases are an open book, just ask.

  5. Looks like 2017 will be another notable year for these cases. I have a Grandson involved in a CHINS case that should never have been. He and the whole family are being held hostage by CPS and the 'current mood' of the CPS caseworker. If the parents disagree with a decision, they are penalized. I, along with other were posting on Jasper County Online News, but all were quickly warned to remove posts. I totally understand that some children need these services, but in this case, it was mistakes, covered by coorcement of father to sign papers, lies and cover-ups. The most astonishing thing was within 2 weeks of this child being placed with CPS, a private adoption agency was asking questions regarding child's family in the area. I believe a photo that was taken by CPS manager at the very onset during the CHINS co-ocerment and the intent was to make money. I have even been warned not to post or speak to anyone regarding this case. Parents have completed all requirements, met foster parents, get visitation 2 days a week, and still the next court date is all the way out till May 1, which gives them(CPS) plenty of to time make further demands (which I expect) No trust of these 'seasoned' case managers, as I have already learned too much about their dirty little tricks. If they discover that I have posted here, I expect they will not be happy and penalized parents again. Still a Hostage.

ADVERTISEMENT