CopyCited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Dec 5, 1990 | 260 Ga. 690
...e DOAS for alleged violations of state procurement laws. One issue is whether Amdahl may seek to have the contract that DOAS entered into with the winning bidder (appellee International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)) cancelled pursuant to OCGA §
50-5-79....
...on Amdahl's request for equitable relief on the ground that Amdahl has an adequate remedy at law a suit for money damages; and whether Amdahl can pursue a claim for relief under 42 USC § 1983 against DOAS and its commissioner. We find that OCGA §
50-5-79 does not apply to this case; that Amdahl, as a rejected bidder, does have standing to sue DOAS under general principles of law; that Amdahl is entitled to seek equitable relief; that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to ap...
...Amdahl alleged that DOAS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to require IBM to comply strictly with the RFP and the rules applying thereto. Because of these alleged violations, Amdahl contended that DOAS' contract with IBM was void under either §
50-5-79, the Georgia Vendor Manual, or applicable rules of Georgia law....
...test. Amdahl requested compensatory and punitive *693 damages, as well as attorney fees and injunctive relief. Following its answer, DOAS moved for summary judgment on Counts One, Two, and Four of Amdahl's complaint. DOAS contended, inter alia, that §
50-5-79 only applied to contracts entered into by state agencies required to purchase through DOAS and not to contracts made by DOAS for its own purchases, and that, even if §
50-5-79 did apply, only the state had standing to sue under the statute; that Amdahl, as a rejected bidder, did not have standing to sue DOAS for violations of procurement laws; that Amdahl was not entitled to seek equitable relief; that, even if...
...im. On October 16, 1989, the court held a hearing on DOAS' motion for summary judgment. At the end of the hearing, the court stated that it would grant DOAS' motion. The court orally ruled that only the state had standing to invoke the provisions of §
50-5-79; that Amdahl was not entitled to equitable relief, as a suit for damages was an adequate remedy at law; [3] and that the state and its commissioner were not "persons" within the meaning of 42 USC § 1983....
...[4] The order contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law. Amdahl appealed to this court. We now affirm in part and reverse in part. 1. Amdahl first contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellees, because, Amdahl argues, §
50-5-79 applies to contracts made by DOAS for its own purchases, and permits Amdahl, as a rejected bidder, to have the contract with IBM cancelled. As previously noted, OCGA §
50-5-79 provides that Whenever any department, institution, or agency of the state government required by this part [OCGA Title 50, Ch....
...t the statute thus voids any contract DOAS enters in violation of Title 50, Chapter 5, Article 3, Part 1, or of any rules and regulations made thereunder. Amdahl further argues that, as a frustrated bidder, it is entitled to maintain an action under §
50-5-79....
...Appellees counter that the statute only applies when state agencies that are required to purchase through the DOAS enter contracts in violation of state purchasing rules, and that the plain language of the statute only permits the state to bring suit to enforce the provisions of the statute. We first address whether §
50-5-79 applies to contracts that DOAS enters for its own purchases....
...f the state government shall contract for the purchase of supplies, materials, or equipment contrary to this part or the rules and regulations made hereunder, such contract shall be void and of no effect." For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that §
50-5-79 only applies to contracts entered by agencies required to purchase supplies through DOAS. We thus need not address whether Amdahl has standing to enforce the provisions of §
50-5-79....
...It is not, however, a fact-finding function (or "substance" -finding!) as is suggested by the reversal of summary judgment in this division. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of the holding in the Jones case at the time it ruled, remand is necessary. [10] NOTES [1] OCGA §
50-5-79 provides as follows: Whenever any department, institution, or agency of the state government required by this part [OCGA Title 50, Ch....
...oceed at its own risk with the installation of IBM's computers, thus obviating the need for an emergency ruling on Amdahl's complaint. [4] Amdahl subsequently dismissed Count Three of its complaint (its claim for damages) without prejudice. [5] OCGA §
50-5-79 refers to "any department, institution, or agency of the state government required by this part and the rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto ......
