1. The Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated the underlying
intent of the competitive bidding statutes in the following
statement: " A fundamental purpose of competitive bidding
is to deprive or limit the discretion of contract making officials in
the areas which are susceptible to such abuses as fraud, favoritism,
improvidence, and extravagances." Griswold v County of
Ramsey, 65 N.W.2d 647 (Minn. 1954).
2. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court in Hubbard
Broadcasting, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission,381
N.W.2d 842 (Minn. 1986) held that the bidding statutes are to be
narrowly applied. The Court found the agreement for the
scoreboard system for the stadium "is more than a contract for
merely materials, supplies, or equipment....Many of the features of
the agreement are simply beyond any fair meaning of contracts for
materials, supplies and equipment with in the statute." Id.at
846. Thus, the court concluded that the competitive bidding
statute (Minn. Stat. 471.345) did not apply. The following
lengthy quote is instructive of the court's reasoning:
We have recognized that public bidding provisions are to be
construed narrowly. In R.E. Short Co. v Minneapolis,
269 N.W.2d 331, 342 n. 11 (Minn. 1978), we noted that the public
bidding statute is restrictive and should not be extended to
contracts not envisioned by the legislature. In Griswold v.
Ramsey County, 65 N.W. 2d 647, 651 (Minn. 1954), we
stated: "In the absence of a controlling constitutional,
statutory, or charter provision, it is generally held that public
policy does not demand that a municipal corporation...advertise for
bids and let the contract to the lowest responsible bidder."
...One authoritative text notes: "These [competitive
bidding] provisions are strictly construed by the courts, and will
not be extended beyond their reasonable purport. Such
provisions must be read in the light of the reason for their
enactment, lest they be applied where they were not intended to
operate and thus deny municipalities authority to deal with problems
in a sensible, practical way." 10 E. McQuillin, Municipal
Corporations (3rd ed.) S 29.29 (citations omitted). This
principle of narrow construction requires that the contract being
challenged must unambiguously fall within the language of the public
bidding statute...
3
