holding state entity that acted as if it was soliciting competitive bidding on a contract must follow specified bidding procedures for that contract
How later courts described this case
- holding state entity that acted as if it was soliciting competitive bidding on a contract must follow specified bidding procedures for that contract
- finding judicial intervention warranted where the Commonwealth failed to follow its own solicitation terms, undermining the benefits of competitive bidding
- ambiguity as to whether bids for computerized daily numbers game were to be calculated on effective rate or accumulative rate basis
- observing that "principles of municipal law forbid the substitution of judicial discretion for administrative discretion”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*578 LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Even the majority recognizes that judicial intervention was proper because “the elementary principles of competitive bidding had been violated when Control Data was allowed to ‘clarify’ its bid after American Totalisator’s bid had been opened.” However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the chancellor acted properly in ordering the submission of new bids since American Totalisator had in fact been the lowest responsible bidder; and, as such, I would now award the contract to American Totalisator. Additionally, I would compel Control Data to disgorge its profits to the Commonwealth.