Walsh v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2009 » Walsh v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

State: Illinois

Court: 1st District Appellate

Docket No: 1-08-3167 Rel

Case Date: 03/20/2009

Preview:FIFTH DIVISION March 20, 2009

No. 1-08-3167 WALSH/II IN ONE JOINT VENTURE III, a Joint Venture, ) WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, ) and II IN ONE CONTRACTORS, INC., an Illinois Corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF ) GREATER CHICAGO, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, and ) DARLENE A. LoCASCIO, in Her Official Capacity, ) ) Defendants-Appellees ) ) (F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen/IHC Construction Joint Venture, ) ) Intervening Defendant-Appellee). ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.

No. 08 CH 39691

The Honorable Kathleen M. Pantle, Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE FITZGERALD SMITH delivered the opinion of the court: The instant cause involves an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) 166 Ill. 2d R. 307 (a)(1)). Plaintiffs-appellant Walsh/II In One Joint Venture III, a joint venture as formed between plaintiffs-appellants Walsh Construction Company, an Illinois corporation, and II In One Contractors, Inc., an Illinois corporation (Walsh), filed a cause of action seeking a preliminary injunction against defendants-appellees Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, an Illinois municipal corporation (District), and Darlene A. LoCascio, in her official capacity (LoCascio), to prevent them from recommending the award of, or awarding, a certain contract on a project to another bidder. Intervening defendant-appellee F.H. Paschen, S.N.

No. 1-08-3167 Nielsen/IHC Construction Joint Venture (Paschen) was granted leave to intervene as a partydefendant and, along with the District, moved for a directed finding pursuant to section 2-1110 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2006)) following a hearing on Walsh's motion for preliminary injunction. The trial court granted the District and Paschen's motions for directed finding and denied Walsh's motion for preliminary injunction. Walsh appeals, contending that the trial court erred in determining as a matter of law that it failed to establish a prima facie case of a clear right in need of protection, and that all the other requirements for a preliminary injunction exist in this case. Walsh asks that we reverse the trial court's order granting the District and Paschen's motions and denying Walsh's motion, and either sua sponte enter a preliminary injunction or remand the matter for further proceedings. For the following reasons, we affirm. BACKGROUND On July 16, 2006, the District announced an invitation to bid on Contract No. 07-220-P3, which pertained to a project with an estimated cost of $244,600,000, known as the Primary Settling Tanks and Grit Removal Facilities at the Calumet Water Reclamation Plant. In the bid packets it made available to all potential bidders, the District provided instructions outlining the requirements necessary for a valid and responsive bid. These included a copy of the District's Affirmative Action Ordinance and Revised Appendix D (Ordinance, Appendix D) specifying the requirement that all bidders provide a "Utilization Plan" signed by the bidder. Sections 8 and 9 of the Ordinance, as included in the pre-bid packet, state: "Section 8. Utilization Plan and Review

2

No. 1-08-3167 (a) Each contractor shall submit with its bid a completed and signed Utilization Plan ***. ***The contractor is required to sign the Utilization Plan ***. (b) Each contractor shall include with its bid, a signed and completed Utilization Plan ***. *** Failure to submit the Utilization Plan signed by the contractor at the time of the bid opening *** will be viewed as nonresponsive and the bid will be rejected. *** *** Section 9. Compliance Review and Enforcement (a) Review of Bid Submission Responsiveness (i) The Purchasing Agent of the District ('Purchasing Agent') shall review each bid submission on a contract to determine if the contractor included in the submission a completed and signed Utilization Plan required by Section 9 herein. (ii) The Purchasing Agent shall declare the bid submission nonresponsive where a contractor (a) failed to submit with its bid a completed and signed Utilization Plan ***." Affirmative Action Ordinance Appendix D of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

Download Walsh v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.pdf