Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; July 17, 1978; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Two appeals have been consolidated, originating from the Pulaski and Ouachita Circuit Courts, concerning four state printing contracts initially awarded to Hurley Company as the lowest bidder. The State Printing Board discovered that Hurley failed to file the required performance bonds within the stipulated time frames (7 days for one contract and 10 days for the others). In response, the Board held a meeting on January 6, 1978, where it voted to rescind the contracts and reallocate three to the next lowest bidders, while deciding to readvertise the fourth contract, for which Hurley was the sole bidder.
Hurley subsequently filed a lawsuit against the State Printing Board and its chairman in Ouachita Circuit Court, appealing under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court initially issued a temporary restraining order against the Board's actions and later ruled that Hurley had substantially complied with the performance bond requirement, implying that the Board waived strict compliance by executing the contracts. This ruling is the subject of Case No. 78-162.
Meanwhile, General Publishing Company, awarded one contract as the second lowest bidder, sought a writ of mandamus from the Pulaski Circuit Court to compel the Printing Administrator, Robert Sikes, to deliver the contract that had been prepared and signed prior to the restraining order. The Pulaski Circuit Court's judgment in favor of General Publishing is under appeal in Case No. 78-144.
The essential facts of both cases are agreed upon, centered around a regulation mandating that bidders must comply strictly with all rules and that performance bonds are to be posted within specified time limits. Hurley was notified of its contract award in November 1977 but failed to file the required bonds on time, instead submitting a letter indicating the bonds were in transit. The Board's chairman deemed this letter sufficient and signed the contracts. However, upon protests from other bidders regarding Hurley's non-compliance, the Board convened, allowing representatives from both Hurley and General Publishing to present their positions before deciding to rescind Hurley's contracts.
The Ouachita County case revolves around the interpretation of the State Printing Law, specifically Act 544 of 1975, which established the State Printing Board with duties that include serving as an appeals body for disputes related to the law. Hurley argues that the Board's action on January 6 constituted an 'adjudication' subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the court finds this argument unpersuasive. It clarifies that while administrative boards can act in various capacities, only judicial actions are subject to court review. The Administrative Procedure Act restricts judicial review to formal 'adjudications,' which require specific procedural elements such as notice, hearing, written decisions, and findings of fact and law. The January 6 action of the Board lacked these elements; it did not involve testimony, findings, or a certified record, and was simply an administrative decision. Consequently, the court concludes that the Ouachita Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter and should have upheld the Board's motion to dismiss Hurley's complaint. The court therefore reverses the circuit court's judgment and dismisses the action.
In the Pulaski County case, the State Printing Board is affirmed to have the statutory authority to adopt regulations, which require bidders to comply literally with its rules. Hurley failed to meet the requirement of posting a performance bond within the specified time frame, as submitting a letter indicating a bond was forthcoming does not constitute literal compliance. The Board's decision to rescind Hurley’s contracts during its January meeting for noncompliance was justified. Although the Board initially awarded the contracts to Hurley as the lowest bidder, the chairman acted outside his authority by deciding the contracts should remain with Hurley despite the failure to submit timely bonds.
General Publishing Company claims relief through mandamus, while the Printing Administrator and Hurley argue it should have been through certiorari. However, General Publishing had no reason to challenge the Board's January decision, which favored it. The complaint was against the Printing Administrator's failure to mail the executed contract, for which he provided no reasonable explanation. The Pulaski Circuit Court's issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the Printing Administrator to fulfill his duty to deliver the executed contract was appropriate, as the Board had fulfilled its obligations. The judgment in Case No. 78-162 is reversed and dismissed, while in Case No. 78-144, the judgment is affirmed. Immediate mandates are issued in both cases due to public interest. Harris, C.J. concurs with the outcome, while Hickman, J. dissents in Case No. 78-144.
