Competitive Bid Law - Remedies
Zeigler v. Clinton Carter, [Ms. 1160887; 1160897, July 27, 2018] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2018). This decision by Justice Mendheim issues writs of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit Court to dismiss the sole remaining count in a complaint brought by Jim Zeigler, State Auditor, in his capacity as a taxpayer, challenging a contract between CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. and the State of Alabama under the competitive bid laws.
The petitions asserted, inter alia, that the declaratory judgment claim was moot because CGI had fully performed under the contract in question. Ms. *10. Zeigler contended that he was entitled to recover restitution on behalf of the State for funds paid pursuant to a fully performed contract that was not competitively bid. Ms. *15. The Supreme Court rejected this contention in issuing the writs of mandamus, holding
[T]he fact remains that the only relief authorized under § 41-16-31 [Ala. Code 1975] is “to enjoin execution of any contract entered into in violation of the provisions of this article,” whether the complaining party is an unsuccessful bidder or a taxpayer. In keeping with this language, our cases repeatedly have emphasized a taxpayer’s right to stop the unlawful expenditure of taxpayer money but have not mentioned a taxpayer’s having a right to recover funds already expended by the State for services already rendered.