Transit service provider brought declaratory judgment action against city, challenging bidding process by which city accepted competing contractor’s bid and asserting defamation claim against city council member. The District Court granted summary judgment to city and council member. Provider appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Provider appealed.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that:
- In the absence of a statutory standard, unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious standard adopted in Griswold is the appropriate standard for reviewing a city’s or county’s decision to award a government contract after a “best value” bidding process;
- There was no evidence that winning bidder had an organizational conflict of interest as would render bidding process void; and
- Genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether city awarded the contract based on an unfair and biased process precluding summary judgment.