MTA

Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Good Law
2000 Cal. LEXIS 4551·2000 Daily Journal DAR 6173·23 Cal. 4th 305·96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 747·1 P.3d 63
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 12, 2000S077461California6,074 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brown, J.

We consider in this case whether the lowest responsible bidder that is wrongfully denied a public contract has a cause of action for monetary damages against the public entity, and if so, whether those damages include bid preparation costs and lost profits. We conclude bid preparation costs but not lost profits are available under a theory of promissory estoppel. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In April 1994, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) solicited bids to build the Red Line Hollywood/Highland station and tunnels. The lowest bid was from Tutor-Saliba-Perini (Tutor-Saliba), but plaintiff Kajima/Ray Wilson (Kajima) successfully protested Tutor-Saliba receiving the award because Tutor-Saliba had not attained MTA’s goal regarding use of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). Ultimately, none of the submitted bids were deemed responsive, and MTA exercised its right to reject all bids. (Pub. Util. Code, § 130232, subd. (a) [“The commission, at its discretion, may reject any and all bids and readvertise.”].) Tutor-Saliba filed suit challenging this action.

In November 1994, MTA…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.