C. Forum
1. Administrative Challenges
a. Formal procedures do not exist at the state or local level for
administrative challenges to county bid procedures.
b. Informal challenges must be tailored to the specific procurement
and brought to the attention of everyone involved in the process.
2. Judicial Challenges
a. Standing: Standing must be established. The most
frequent challenges to the bid process or contract awards are taxpayer
suits, Unsuccessful bidders may also bring a cause of action.
b. Scope of Review: The scope of review by the court is
limited to determining whether there has been fraud, collusion,
favoritism or abuse of discretion. Duffy v. Village of
Princeton, 60 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. 1953). Abuse of discretion relates
to such things as material deviation of bid proposals, insufficiency
of bid specifications and failure to follow statutory bidding
procedures. The court will not attempt to substitute its
judgment for that of the county. McQuillin, Municipal
Corporations, (3rd ed.) § 29.83.
D. Remedies
1. Injunctive Relief
a. Suits may be brought: (i) to set aside contracts entered into
without competitive bidding; (ii) to set aside awards when bid
specifications are too indefinite or are invalid for any other reason;
(iii) or when a bid deviates substantially from specifications.
See Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis, et al,
451 N.W. 2d 204, (Minn. 1990); Griswold v. Ramsey County, 65
N.W.2d 647 (Minn. 1954); Duffy, supra; Coller v. City of St. Paul,
26 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. 1947); Nielson v. City of Albert Lea, 86
N.W. 83 (Minn. 1904); Otter Tail Power Co. v. Village of Elbow Lake,
49 N.W.2d 197 (Minn. 1951); LeTourneau v. Hugo, 97 N.W. 115
(Minn. 1959); Arpin v. Thief River Falls, 141 N.W. 833 (Minn.
1913).
b. Generally, a bidder is not entitled to injunctive relief.
McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, (3rd ed.) § 29.83. Leskinen
v. Pucelj, 115 N.W. 2d 346 (1962).
