temporary restraining order - Finance & Commerce

“proper challenges to the bid-letting process should be encouraged” (emphasis added). See also
Concept Automation, Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed.Cl. 361, 370 (1998) (“the public interest in the
integrity of the competitive bidding process can only be vindicated by encouraging, or at least
not discouraging, protests of wrongful actions”) (emphasis added).
For more than 50 years, the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that the public has
a strong interest in maintaining the integrity of public procurements. Griswold, 65 N.W.2d at
652. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims stated the benefits of challenges to procurement
decisions in Concept Automation, Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed.Cl. 361, 366 (1998):
The purpose of the bid protest scheme is twofold. First, it is designed to
benefit the taxpayers, and hence the government, by making government
procurement both more fair and more efficient. This is so in various ways. If
contractors have an honest and fair system, they will be more willing to deal with
the government at a lower price. Also, if the government acts honestly and
rationally, the government and the taxpayers will get the best deal for their money
and needs. Finally a fair and efficient system will maximize public accountability
and allow for more rational planning for future needs. The other basic purpose is
to benefit those who do business with the government. This is partially based on
basic fairness or justice. People, whether citizens, foreigners, or even contractors,
should be treated fairly. It is also based on sound business practice. It is critical
to deal with vendors, suppliers, or customers properly. Otherwise, you may
encourage them to treat you badly.
Minnesota and federal case law are uniform that all bidders must be treated fairly and
equally in the process to award a public contract. Without assurance that bidders will be treated
equally, vendors will be discouraged from bidding on future projects. As described above, fewer
vendors means less competition and higher prices in the future. The public is entitled to
procurement processes and decisions that are transparent and comply with public bidding laws.
The public interest and the relationship of the parties heavily favors the issuance of an
injunction to ensure that St. Paul acts fairly and the public’s purse is safeguarded. Plaintiffs are
protecting both their own and the public’s interest by moving to enforce the State’s procurement
laws and the integrity of this procurement.
N:\PL\85155\85155-001\1607234.docx 17