{
  "id": 5323104,
  "name": "Joseph J. Duffy, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Duffy v. State",
  "decision_date": "1978-09-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 76-CC-1405",
  "first_page": "633",
  "last_page": "635",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 633"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 274,
    "char_count": 3897,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.785,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5330875625009783e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28380631457664135
    },
    "sha256": "b359d60993a1f5dabb624630e4ce3e5908d3cc231c8aac0dabf26a301b74db14",
    "simhash": "1:587689b1f873aef4",
    "word_count": 645
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:54:10.322906+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph J. Duffy, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holderman, J.\nThis matter comes before the Court on Claimant\u2019s motion for partial summary judgment and Respondent\u2019s objections to said motion.\nThis matter arises over bids for building a new Parker High School. The bids for said school were opened on October 30, 1975, and the two lowest bids were\nWalsh $1,360,000.00\nDuffy $1,544,863.00\nOn November 4,1975, Walsh\u2019s bid was rejected due to an omission in a F.E.P.C. form regarding the entry of a miniority subcontractor who would do work having a value of not less than 30 percent of the awarded contract value.\nDuffy received a notice of award, dated November 7, 1975, which he claims he received on November 6, 1975. This notice stated, in part:\n\u201cDo not commence any work until you have received notice to proceed...\u201d\nOn November 7, 1975, a mailgram was sent to Duffy confirming the message of November 7, 1975, that the notice of award had been rescinded. On November 10, 1975, the Capital Development Board (CDB) confirmed its rescission notice of November 7, 1975. The reason for the rescission was based on a mistake as to the lowest responsible bidder.\nClaimant\u2019s motion is based upon an action for breach of contract. It is Claimant\u2019s position that the contract had been accepted and that the attempted rescission is illegal.\nThe controversy arises primarily over the fact that one of the essential bidding requirements was that not less than 30 percent of the awarded contract value must be performed by a minority subcontractor. In order to implement the Minority Contractor Participation requirement, each bidder was required to complete Form R.P.M.C.-l, on or before October 30,1975, giving the name of the qualified minority subcontractor participant. This was not done in the Walsh bid.\nOn November 7, 1975, Duffy wrote to Mr. Moynihan, former Acting Executive Director of the Capital Development Board of the State of Illinois, acknowledging to the CDB its receipt of the notification of the pre-construction conference which was to be held on November 14,1975, and in accordance with the CDB\u2019s request, Duffy returned to the CDB executed copies of the form of Owner-Contractor Agreement, Performance Bond, the Labor and Material Payment Bond, and the Certificate of Insurance. The CDB admittedly knew Duffy was ready, willing and able to perform the structural concrete work for the project but blocked the performance of the contract.\nThe Respondent\u2019s position is that the CDB relied on a \u201cmistake\u201d to support its rescission of the contract \u2014 the mistake being that they rejected the Walsh bid in the first instance. This came as a result of not being aware that Walsh intended to perform the work without the use of a subcontractor which eliminated the need to enter the name of the minority subcontractor. The CDB had not made any provision for a bid similar to the one made by Walsh.\nIt is the State\u2019s contention that the rescission was not even necessary in the present case \u2014 its position being that a contracting party cannot one day award to contractor A and on the next to contractor B so long as he has the discretion to award to another.\nIt is also the State\u2019s contention that the mandates of the \u201cIllinois Purchasing Act\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, sec. 132.1) does not give the Capital Development Board unfettered discretion to choose between the lowest responsible bidder and the next to low. It must award to the lowest bidder.\nThe statute being clear in matters of this kind, it was mandatory that the bid be given to the lowest bidder, which was the Walsh Construction Company.\nMotion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby denied and said cause is dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holderman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Attorneys for Claimant.",
      "William J. Scott, Attorney General; Carl J. Klein, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 76-CC-1405\nJoseph J. Duffy, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed September 7, 1978.\nSchiff, Hardin & Waite, Attorneys for Claimant.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General; Carl J. Klein, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0633-01",
  "first_page_order": 747,
  "last_page_order": 749
}