Maryland Pavement Co. v. Mahool

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order of the Superior Court of Baltimore City refusing a mandamus and dismissing the petitioner’s application therefor. A statement of the facts will be necessary for an understanding of the case. By Ordinance Ho. 258 of the Mayor and Oily Council of Baltimore, passed on the 9th day of April, 1907, the City Engineer was authorized and directed to have all that part of Monroe street from the southeast side of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad tracks to the northwest side of Columbia avenue graded and paved with belgian blocks and curbed or re-curbed where necessary with six (6) inch granite, gneiss, armored concrete or other curb, approved by the City Engineer; all of said work was to be done in accordance with specifications to be prepared by the City Engineer, who should advertise for proposals for doing the work. ⁴⁰⁶ On the 4th of March, 1908, Mr. Eendall, the City Engineer, published in the Baltimore Sun the following advertisement calling for proposals: Department of Public Improvements.

Sub-Department of City Engineer. Baltimore, March 4, 1908. Separate sealed proposals, addressed to the Board of Awards, care of the City Engineer, will be received by the City Register at his office, City Hall, until 11 A. M., Wednesday, March 18th, 1908, to grade, curb and pave the following streets: With Belgian Blocks. Monroe Street from the southeast side of the B. & O. R. -R. tracks to'the northwest side of Columbia Avenue.

With 'Vitrified' Brick. Lakewood Avenue from the south curb line of Eastern Avenue to the north curb line of Canton Avenue. ' -Specifications and proposal -sheets will be furnished upon application to this office! The Board of Awards reserves the right to reject any and all bids. A certified check on a clearinghouse bank for an amount as recited in the specifications, made payable to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, must accompany each bid.

B. R. Eendall, Approved: City Engineer. J. Barry Mahool, President Board of Awards. The specifications, which were subsequently presented to the bidders, contained this provision: “None, hut the best materials of the several descriptions shall he used, and all material shall he equal in every respect to the requirements of the specifications and to the samples furnished. "Each bidder must deposit with, Ms proposal a sample granite block, stating at what quarry it ivas manufactured and agree if the contract is awarded to- him’to- use only blocks made at said quarry and equal to the sample.” ⁴⁰⁷ It appears there were three bids submitted to the Board of Awards, and the contract for the paving of the street was on the 25th of March, 1908, awarded tó P. Elanigan & Sons.

The report of the City Engineer stated they were the lowest bidders who had complied with the specifications. While it will be seen that the appellant’s bid was the lowest in amount for the paving, it did not comply with the requirements of the specifications, that each bidder must deposit with his proposal a sample granite block, stating at what quarry it was manufactured and agreeing, if the contract was awarded to it, to use only blocks made at said quarry and equal to the sample. The case was heard in the Court below upon petition, answer, traverse and joinder of'issue to the defendant’s answer to the paragraphs of the petition and proof. The Court rejected the prayers on behalf of the petitioner and granted the prayer on behalf of the respondent, to the effect that no evidence has been offered legally sufficient under the pleadings to entitle the petitioner to the writ of mandamus, and that the verdict cf the Court, sitting as a jury, must be for the defendant.

The questions presented for our consideration by the rulings of the Court upon the prayers and necessary for the determination of the case on this appeal practically come to this: (1) Was the failure of the appellant to comply with the specifications and proposals a sufficient reason for the refusal of the appellees to award the contract on the bid presented by it? (2) Is not the letting of contracts by the Board of Awards, like the one in question, to the lowest bidder, in the absence of fraud, absolutely final and. beyond the