This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case arose from a public works contract awarded by Gadsden Independent School District for remodeling work on two schools. The contractor listed Dynacon, Inc. as the roofing subcontractor for both bid lots in its bid. After being awarded the contract for only one bid lot, the contractor sought to substitute Frontier Roofing as the roofing subcontractor, arguing that Frontier had submitted the lower bid for that specific lot. Dynacon objected to the substitution, and the dispute centered on the interpretation of New Mexico's Subcontractors Fair Practices Act, which restricts the substitution of subcontractors to prevent bid shopping and bid peddling (paras 4-6).
Procedural History
- District Court: Granted summary judgment in favor of Dynacon, holding that the contractor could not substitute Frontier Roofing as the subcontractor (paras 6, 24).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Contractor): Argued that it was entitled to substitute Frontier Roofing under the Subcontractors Fair Practices Act because the award of the contract for only one bid lot made Frontier the lower bidder. It also contended that listing two subcontractors for different bid lots would have violated the Act (paras 5-6, 7, 10).
- Appellee (Dynacon): Opposed the substitution, asserting that the Act prohibited such changes except under specific circumstances, none of which applied. Dynacon argued that the contractor's interpretation of the Act would undermine its purpose of preventing bid shopping and peddling (paras 6, 14).
Legal Issues
- Whether the contractor violated the Subcontractors Fair Practices Act by attempting to substitute Frontier Roofing for Dynacon as the subcontractor (para 6).
- Whether the Act permits listing different subcontractors for different bid lots in a single bid (para 7).
- Whether the contractor's interpretation of "bid alternate" under the Act justified the substitution (para 10).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Dynacon, holding that the contractor's substitution of Frontier Roofing was not permitted under the Subcontractors Fair Practices Act (para 24).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Donnelly and Black JJ. concurring):
- The court held that the contractor could have listed different subcontractors for different bid lots without violating the Act. The Act's requirement to list only one subcontractor per category applies to each distinct bid or combination of bid lots, as supported by the bidding instructions and the Act's purpose of preventing bid shopping and peddling (paras 7-9).
- The contractor's reliance on Section 13-4-36(A)(5), which allows substitution when a "bid alternate" causes the original subcontractor's bid to no longer be the lowest, was rejected. The court found that the contractor's interpretation of "bid alternate" would undermine the Act's purpose by enabling bid shopping and peddling whenever a contract was awarded on a bid alternate (paras 10-14).
- The court emphasized that the Act's listing and substitution provisions are prophylactic measures designed to prevent bid shopping and peddling, not to rely on after-the-fact inquiries into such practices (para 14).
- The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the meaning of "bid alternate" or "category" under the Act, as these were matters of statutory interpretation, not factual disputes (paras 20-23).