J&A Excavation, Inc. v. City of Ellisville, Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2022-CA-00533-COA

J&A EXCAVATION, INC. APPELLANT

v.

CITY OF ELLISVILLE, MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/13/2022
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DAL WILLIAMSON
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID BONDS ELLIS
NICHOLAS JAMES TOCA
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: RANDY P. LAIRD
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 09/19/2023
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

CONSOLIDATED WITH

NO. 2022-CA-00547-COA

J&A EXCAVATION, INC. APPELLANT

v.

JONES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/13/2022
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DAL WILLIAMSON
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID BONDS ELLIS
NICHOLAS JAMES TOCA
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: DANIELLE ASHLEY
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 09/19/2023
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
BEFORE WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND LAWRENCE, JJ.

WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. J&A Excavation Inc. (J&A) was the lowest bidder for two public construction

contracts—one for the City of Ellisville and the other for Jones County. However, the City’s

Board of Aldermen and the County’s Board of Supervisors rejected J&A’s bids and accepted

the next-lowest bids for the projects, both submitted by TM Productions LLC (TM). Both

boards relied on negative feedback their engineer received regarding J&A’s performance on

other projects, but neither board inquired or received any information regarding TM’s

qualifications, reputation, or capabilities. J&A appealed the boards’ decisions to the Jones

County Circuit Court, which affirmed in both cases. J&A again appealed. We hold that the

boards’ decisions were not supported by substantial evidence and were arbitrary and

capricious. Therefore, we reverse the judgments of the circuit court and remand both cases

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. The City of Ellisville Project

¶2. The City of Ellisville published an advertisement for bids for a National Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) watershed protection project located at Camp Street, Church

Street, and Main Street. The NRCS, an agency of the United States Department of

Agriculture, would fund 75% of the cost of the project.

¶3. The project engineer, Wiley Pickering of Chas. N. Clark Associates Ltd., received and

opened four bids on March 28, 2022. J&A submitted the lowest bid of $198,359.15. TM

2
submitted the next-lowest bid of $214,035. Two other contractors submitted bids of

$253,396 and $439,492.05.

¶4. Three days later, Pickering sent an email to Norman Patterson, a supervisory engineer

at the NRCS. Pickering told Patterson that J&A was the low bidder on both the City’s NRCS

project and the County’s NRCS project (discussed infra). Pickering asked Patterson if J&A

was in “good standing” with the NRCS and whether J&A’s work on similar NRCS projects

had been “acceptable.” Pickering did not mention or inquire about TM or any other bidder.

¶5. Patterson responded later the same day, stating:

Actually, we have an active EWP [(Emergency Watershed Protection)] project
agreement with construction being performed by [J&A]. It includes 5 bank
stabilization structures. Unfortunately, at this time, none of them meet our
minimal acceptance standards. The punch list items have remained for several
months now. We’ve had similar results with another NRCS project awarded
to them in Central Mississippi. I hope this information helps.

¶6. The next day, Pickering sent a letter to Ellisville’s Mayor, recommending that the City

select TM’s bid as the lowest and best bid. Pickering stated:

We have been advised that [J&A] has not performed well on other recent
projects similar in scope, and that they are not currently in good standing with
NRCS. Therefore, it is the recommendation of Chas. N. Clark Associates,
Ltd., that the bid submitted by [TM] be considered as the lowest and best bid,
and that the contract be awarded to [TM] in the amount of $214,035.00,
contingent upon concurrence from NRCS.

Pickering’s letter provided no information regarding TM, its standing with the NRCS, or its

performance on other projects.

¶7. On April 5, 2022, the City’s Board of Aldermen voted unanimously to accept TM’s

bid. The Board’s minutes acknowledge that J&A submitted the lowest bid but state that

3
“based on [J&A’s] poor performance on previous NRCS projects, it is the City’s Engineer’s

recommendation that the next lowest bid be considered the best and lowest bid and that the

project be awarded to [TM] . . . .”

¶8. J&A filed a notice of appeal in the Jones County Circuit Court pursuant to Mississippi

Code Annotated section 11-51-75 (Rev. 2019).

II. The Jones County Project

¶9. Jones County published an advertisement for bids for an NRCS watershed protection

project at West Jones High School. Pickering, who also served as the project engineer for

the County’s project, received and opened four bids on March 28, 2022. J&A submitted the

lowest bid of $110,708.50. TM submitted the next-lowest bid of $138,560. Two other

contractors submitted bids of $174,118.02 and $309,638.

¶10. As discussed above, Pickering emailed Patterson three days later regarding both the

Ellisville project and the Jones County project, and Patterson responded the same day. See

supra ¶¶4-5. Neither Pickering nor Patterson mentioned TM or any other bidders.

¶11. Pickering then sent a letter to the County recommending that it accept TM’s bid as the

lowest and best bid. The substance of Pickering’s letter to the County was the same as his

letter to the City. See supra ¶6.

¶12. On April 4, 2022, the County’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to accept

TM’s bid. That Board’s order states that “[t]he County Engineer advised the Board that the

lowest bidder, J&A Excavation, was not in good standing with NRCS; therefore, the Board

intends to award the project to the next lowest bidder as it is the lowest and best bid.” The

4
order did not address TM’s qualifications or provide any other reason for the award.

¶13. J&A filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court pursuant to section 11-51-75.

III. Proceedings in the Circuit Court

¶14. As required by section 11-51-75(a)(iii), J&A included a designation of the record in

each of its notices of appeal. However, contrary to the requirements of section 11-51-75(c),

neither the municipal clerk nor the clerk of the Board of Supervisors assembled a record of

the proceedings or delivered a record to the circuit clerk.1

1
As discussed below, the circuit court attempted to determine what should have been
included in the record on appeal in each case, admitting documents that were actually
presented to the Board of Aldermen or Board of Supervisors; contract specifications,
bidding documents, and bids for the projects; and a “Notice of Grant Award and Agreement
Award” for the Jones County project. The circuit court also considered Pickering’s
testimony regarding the information that Pickering actually provided to the Board of
Aldermen and the Board of Supervisors. On appeal before this Court, no party has raised
any issue regarding the content of the record. However, what occurred in this case did not
comply with section 11-51-75, which provides,

The clerk of the board of supervisors or the municipal clerk must assemble a
complete record of the proceedings to include all writings, matters, items,
documents, plats, maps and transcripts of proceedings that were part of the
record and deliver the complete record to the circuit clerk within thirty (30)
days after the filing of the notice of appeal with the circuit clerk. The clerk of
the board of supervisors or the municipal clerk shall certify that the record is
accurate and complete and contains all writings, matters, items, documents,
plats, maps and transcripts of proceedings designated by appellant and
appellee in their designations of record.

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-75(c) (emphasis added); accord UCRCCC 5.02 & 5.05. In future
cases, the municipal or board clerk must assemble a record on appeal, and if the clerk fails
to do so, the appellant must request the circuit court’s assistance in compelling the clerk to
file the record. See UCRCCC 5.05 (“Failure to file the record with the court clerk or to
request the assistance of the court in compelling the same within thirty (30) days of the filing
of the written notice of appeal may be deemed an abandonment of the appeal and the court
may dismiss the same with costs to the appealing party or parties.”). Once the record has
been filed, the circuit court may resolve any disputes regarding the content of the record and,

5
¶15. The circuit court held back-to-back hearings in the cases on May 12, 2022, starting

with the City of Ellisville case. Citing the Mississippi Supreme Court’s recent decision in

Board of Supervisors of Jackson County v. Qualite Sports Lighting LLC, 337 So. 3d 1040

(Miss. 2022), the circuit judge stated he thought that “the first thing [he] ha[d] to do [was]

determine exactly what the record” was, i.e., “the record as it existed at the time the [B]oard

of [A]ldermen . . . made the decision to accept the [next-lowest] bid.” The City suggested

that Pickering should testify regarding what he told the City’s Board of Aldermen prior to

its vote to accept TM’s bid. J&A objected to Pickering’s testimony, arguing that the record

of the meeting should be limited to the Board’s minutes and attachments, which included the

email exchange between Pickering and Patterson and Pickering’s letter to the Mayor. The

circuit judge ruled that Pickering should testify. The judge reasoned that because there was

no transcript, Pickering could “relate on his oath what was told to the supervisors at that

meeting or before that meeting,” but Pickering would “be limited to that” and would not be

allowed to offer “new evidence.”

¶16. Pickering testified that he told the City’s Board about Patterson’s negative feedback

regarding J&A, but he did not provide the Board with any detail beyond what Patterson

stated in his email. Pickering stated that he told the Board that NRCS projects “require

concurrence from [the] NRCS.” Pickering acknowledged that he did not tell the Board

“if necessary, instruct the [municipal clerk or] clerk of the board to supplement the record
with the necessary materials.” Bd. of Supervisors of Jackson Cnty. v. Qualite Sports
Lighting LLC, 337 So. 3d 1040, 1049 (¶28) (Miss. 2022). But the circuit court should not
be forced to assemble the record from scratch. That is the job of the municipal clerk or
board clerk.

6
anything about TM or its bid “other than that [his firm] found their bid to be the . . . best bid”

and recommended “that they be awarded the project.”

¶17. In the Jones County case, Pickering testified that he discussed Patterson’s negative

feedback regarding J&A with the County’s Board of Supervisors, but he did not provide the

Board with any detail beyond what Patterson stated in his email. Pickering stated that he also

told the Board that his firm had “firsthand experience” with J&A’s poor performance on one

of the projects that Patterson’s email referenced. Pickering testified that he advised the

Board that “Patterson did not provide concurrence in awarding the project to J&A.”2

¶18. The circuit court entered substantially similar opinions affirming the decisions of the

Board of Aldermen and the Board of Supervisors. The court held that substantial evidence

supported the decisions based on the information received from the NRCS (i.e., Patterson)

and Pickering’s recommendation based on his firm’s prior experience with J&A. J&A filed

a notice of appeal in both cases. This Court consolidated the two appeals because the two

cases raise common issues of fact and law.

ANALYSIS

¶19. The circuit courts have appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of county boards of

supervisors and municipal governing boards. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-75 (“Any person

2
The record in the Jones County case includes the “Notice of Grant and Agreement
Award” (Form NRCS-ADS-093) for the project. This document states that the County must
obtain the NRCS’s “concurrence” regarding various matters. However, during oral argument
before this Court, counsel for both the County and the City conceded that the document does
not specifically or expressly state that the NRCS must concur in the selection of the
contractor. The Ellisville project apparently utilized the same form document with the same
form terms, though the document was not made part of the record in the Ellisville case.

7
aggrieved by a judgment or decision of the board of supervisors of a county, or the governing

authority of a municipality, may appeal the judgment or decision to the circuit court . . . .”).

This Court’s “review [of such decisions] is limited.” Rod Cooke Constr. Co. v. Lamar Cnty.

Sch. Bd., 135 So. 3d 902, 906 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). As this Court has stated,

[w]e will not set aside the action of the governing body of a municipality
unless such action is clearly shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or
discriminatory or is illegal or without substantial evidentiary basis. An act is
arbitrary and capricious when it is done at pleasure, without reasoned judgment
or with disregard for the surrounding facts and circumstances. Substantial
evidence is such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion or more than a mere scintilla of evidence.

Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Precision Commc’ns Inc. v. Hinds County, 74 So. 3d 366,

369 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)). This is the same standard of review applied by the circuit

court. Holliday Constr. LLC v. George County, 352 So. 3d 651, 660 (¶31) (Miss. Ct. App.

2022). It is also the same standard of review that applies in appeals from decisions of

administrative agencies. Hooks v. George County, 748 So. 2d 678, 680 (¶10) (Miss. 1999).

¶20. Public construction contracts involving more than $75,000 must be awarded to “the

lowest and best bidder” following an advertised competitive bidding process. Miss. Code

Ann. § 31-7-13(d)(i) (Supp. 2021). As the public bidding statute clearly implies, a governing

body is not required “to accept a bid simply because it is the lowest.” Billy E. Burnett Inc.

v. Pontotoc Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 940 So. 2d 241, 243 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006); see

also Canton Farm Equip. Inc. v. Richardson, 501 So. 2d 1098, 1104 (Miss. 1987) (“[I]t is

important to understand that the board is not invariably required to accept the lowest bid.

Rather our law contemplates that the board, if it accepts any bids at all, will accept the

8
‘lowest and best bid.’”).3 A board may consider factors other than price to determine which

bid is the lowest and best bid. Rod Cooke Constr. Co., 135 So. 3d at 907 (¶7). In making

that determination, “public authorities may . . . take into consideration factors such as the

bidder’s honesty and integrity, the bidder’s skill and business judgment, the bidder’s

experience and facilities for carrying out the contract, the bidder’s conduct under previous

contracts, and the quality of work previously done by the bidder.” Billy E. Burnett Inc., 940

So. 2d at 243 (¶6).

¶21. If a public board “accepts a bid other than the lowest bid actually submitted, it shall

place on its minutes detailed calculations and narrative summary showing that the accepted

bid was determined to be the lowest and best bid, including the dollar amount of the accepted

bid and the dollar amount of the lowest bid.” Miss. Code Ann. § 31-7-13(d)(i). Although

the board must provide some explanation as to why it did not accept the lowest bid,

“Mississippi bid laws do not require a hearing when a governing authority rejects a lowest

bid.” Nelson v. City of Horn Lake, 968 So. 2d 938, 945 (¶27) (Miss. 2007) (emphasis added).

¶22. While a governing board is “vested with a sound discretion in making a determination

as to who is the ‘lowest and best bidder,’” the board may not “act arbitrarily.” Parker Bros.

v. Crawford, 219 Miss. 199, 209, 68 So. 2d 281, 285 (1953). “An act is arbitrary . . . when

it is done at pleasure, without reasoned judgment or with disregard for the surrounding facts

and circumstances.” Nelson, 968 So. 2d at 942 (¶11). “[S]uch public authorities must always

3
“Nevertheless, all else being equal, it is the duty of public authorities . . . to accept
the bid involving the least expenditure of public funds.” Parker Bros. v. Crawford, 219
Miss. 199, 209, 68 So. 2d 281, 285 (1953).

9
exercise a real discretion based upon facts reasonably tending to support their decision.”

Parker Bros., 219 Miss. at 209, 68 So. 2d at 285. In addition, substantial evidence must

support the board’s decision. Nelson, 968 So. 2d at 942 (¶11). “Substantial evidence is such

relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion or

more than a ‘mere scintilla’ of evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and ellipsis omitted).

¶23. In the present case, the Board of Aldermen and the Board of Supervisors rejected

J&A’s low bids and accepted TM’s next-lowest bids. Both boards attempted to comply with

the statutory requirement that when the lowest bid is rejected, the board must “place on its

minutes detailed calculations and narrative summary showing that the accepted bid was

determined to be the lowest and best bid, including the dollar amount of the accepted bid and

the dollar amount of the lowest bid.” Miss. Code Ann. § 31-7-13(d)(i). The Board of

Aldermen’s minutes show that it accepted TM’s bid “based on [J&A’s] poor performance

on previous NRCS projects.” The Board of Supervisors’ minutes similarly state that it

accepted TM’s bid because J&A “was not in good standing with [the] NRCS.” Both boards’

minutes also show the dollar amounts of the bids.4

¶24. But despite the boards’ attempts to comply with the statute, the boards’ minutes and

the records in these two cases fail to explain or demonstrate how TM’s bids were in any way

better than J&A’s bids. Under Mississippi law, each board was required to award its contract

4
The Supreme Court has indicated that when a low bid is rejected because of
concerns regarding the quality of its previous work, “there will most likely be little in the
way of ‘detailed calculations’ to include in the governing authority’s minutes,” and the
minutes can “provide[] the minimal, requisite ‘detailed calculations’ . . . by citing the dollar
amounts of the lowest bid and accepted bid.” Nelson, 968 So. 2d at 943 (¶¶14-15).

10
to “the lowest and best bidder.” Miss. Code Ann. § 31-7-13(d)(i). We know for a fact that

TM was not “the lowest . . . bidder.” Id. In the City of Ellisville case, TM’s bid was 25%

higher than J&A’s bid, and in the Jones County case, TM’s bid was about 7.9% higher than

J&A’s bid.

¶25. Therefore, to uphold the boards’ decisions, there must be something in the record to

show that TM was the “best bidder.” Id. (emphasis added). As discussed above, the record

before both the Board of Aldermen and the Board of Supervisors includes evidence that the

NRCS (Patterson) and Pickering’s firm had negative experiences with J&A on prior projects.

However, the record does not include any evidence regarding TM’s qualifications,

reputation, or capabilities.5

¶26. Precedents affirming the rejection of low bids have consistently pointed to some

evidence regarding the capabilities of the winning bidder. For instance, in Parker Bros., a

school board “was advised by its architects that [the winning bidder] was well qualified from

experience and financial responsibility, but that [the low bidder] was deficient on both of

these factors.” Parker Bros., 219 Miss. at 204, 68 So. 2d at 282. There, the board “had

information from their architects and other sources that [the winning bidder] . . . had a large

amount of experience in plumbing, heating and ventilating contracts similar to the one in

question,” whereas the low bidder “had no experience as contractors,” having worked only

5
After J&A appealed, Pickering stated in an unsworn letter to counsel for Jones
County that his firm “had previous experience with TM . . . , and their work was found to
be in compliance with the project specifications.” Pickering’s letter also asserted that he had
spoken with Patterson, and Patterson was “in agreement with [the] recommendation” to
award the contract to TM. However, the circuit court properly declined to consider the post-
appeal letter, as the Board of Supervisors did not receive or consider this information.

11
as employees for other contractors. Id. at 206, 68 So. 2d at 283.

¶27. In Rod Cooke Construction Co., a school board received and considered “positive

comments” and “negative comments” regarding “both bidders,” i.e., the lowest bidder and

second-lowest bidder. Rod Cooke Constr. Co., 135 So. 3d at 905 (¶2) (emphasis added).

The project architect “investigated both [bidders] in an equal manner, contacting seven prior

references for each,” and provided the board with positive and negative comments regarding

each. Id. at 907 (¶10) (emphasis added).

¶28. In Billy E. Burnett Inc., the board of supervisors contacted the low bidder’s references,

“some references were very negative, and . . . overall, the responses indicated that [the low

bidder’s] work was mediocre.” Billy E. Burnett Inc., 940 So. 2d at 243 (¶7). In contrast, the

winning bidder “had been awarded construction contracts in [the county], and [its] work and

reputation were known to be excellent.” Id. We affirmed the board’s decision, stating that

it “rightly considered the relative experience and reputation of the two firms.” Id. at 245

(emphasis added). The board “did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in awarding the

construction contract . . . , as the board was free to consider the experience, skill, and

reputation of the competing firms in determining which bid was the ‘lowest and best.’” Id.

(emphasis added); see also Qualite Sports Lighting LLC, 337 So. 3d at 1042 (¶3) (noting that

the project engineer contacted references for both bidders and reported the responses to the

board of supervisors).

¶29. Finally, in Nelson, the low bidder, whose bid was rejected, made a similar argument

to the argument J&A makes in this case. Nelson, 968 So. 2d at 945 (¶30). The low bidder

12
alleged “that the City engaged in a ‘witchhunt’ to deny him the . . . contract and did not

investigate [the winning bidder] or other bidders.” Id. However, the Supreme Court rejected

the low bidder’s argument because “[t]he record provide[d] some evidence that the City

investigated other bidders.” Id. at (¶31).

¶30. In the present case, in contrast, the record provides no evidence that the Board of

Aldermen or the Board of Supervisors received any information regarding TM. Pickering’s

recommendation letters to the boards did not mention TM’s qualifications, reputation, or

capabilities. Furthermore, nothing else in the boards’ minutes or records show that they ever

received or considered such information. Finally, Pickering did not testify that he told either

of the boards anything about TM. The record does show that Pickering received some

negative feedback regarding J&A, but the record does not show that he ever sought any

feedback or had any prior experience with TM. If he did, the record indicates that no such

information was conveyed to either board. In the absence of such evidence, there is no way

for a reviewing court to determine whether TM was in any respect better than J&A, let alone

the “lowest and best bidder.” In the absence of some evidence comparing the qualifications,

reputations, or capabilities of the competing bidders, we cannot affirm a governing

authority’s rejection of the low bidder. See Parker Bros., 219 Miss. at 209, 68 So. 2d at 285

(“[A]ll else being equal, it is the duty of public authorities . . . to accept the bid involving the

least expenditure of public funds.”). Put simply, we cannot possibly determine that TM was

better than J&A or “the lowest and best bidder” when the record discloses nothing about TM

except that it did not submit the lowest bid.

13
¶31. Because there is no evidence in the record that TM was the “lowest and best bidder,”

Miss. Code Ann. § 31-7-13(d)(i), the decisions of the Board of Aldermen and the Board of

Supervisors awarding the subject construction contracts to TM are not supported by

“substantial evidence.” In addition, because the boards’ decisions are “not based on

substantial evidence, it necessarily follows that the decision[s] [are] arbitrary and capricious.”

Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Dearman, 846 So. 2d 1014, 1019 (¶14) (Miss. 2003) (quoting Miss.

State Dep’t of Health v. Natchez Cmty. Hosp., 743 So. 2d 973, 977 (¶13) (Miss. 1999));

accord Sheffield v. S.J. Louis Constr. Inc., 285 So. 3d 614, 618 (¶8) (Miss. 2019). Therefore,

the judgments of the Jones County Circuit Court affirming the decisions of the Board of

Aldermen and Board of Supervisors are reversed, and the cases are remanded for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶32. Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-51-75(d) provides “[i]f the judgment is

reversed, the circuit court shall render such judgment or decision as the board of supervisors

or the governing authority of the municipality ought to have rendered, and certify the same

to the board of supervisors or the governing authority of the municipality. Costs shall be

awarded as in other cases.” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-75(d). In an appeal from a competitive

bid award, the appropriate remedy may be to order the governmental entity to either accept

the bid that it should have accepted “or reject all bids and rebid the project.” City of Durant

v. Laws Constr. Co., 721 So. 2d 598, 600, 605 (¶¶4, 28) (Miss. 1998); accord Holliday

Constr. LLC, 352 So. 3d at 662-66 (¶¶40-52). However, if the project has been substantially

completed during the litigation, damages for breach of contract may be an appropriate

14
remedy. City of Durant, 721 So. 2d at 605-06 (¶¶28, 34); accord W.G. Yates & Sons Constr.

Co. v. City of Waveland, 168 So. 3d 963, 974-75 (¶¶61-64) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

¶33. The records in the two cases before us do not show what became of these projects

during this litigation or whether either the City or the County might have rejected all bids if

they could not accept TM’s bid. Cf. City of Durant, 721 So. 2d at 605 (¶28) (“Under normal

circumstances, the circuit court would have ordered the City not to consider [an invalid] bid,

and either accept the next lowest bid or reject all bids and rebid the project.”). Because the

records in these two cases do not permit us to determine the appropriate remedy or remedies

in the particular circumstances of these cases, we remand the cases to the circuit court for

further proceedings on this issue.

CONCLUSION

¶34. The decisions of the Board of Aldermen and the Board of Supervisors were not

supported by substantial evidence and were arbitrary and capricious because each board

rejected J&A’s low bid and accepted the next-lowest bid without any record evidence

regarding the qualifications, reputation, or capabilities of the selected bidder. Therefore, the

judgments of the circuit court are reversed, and these cases are remanded to the circuit court

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶35. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, McDONALD,
LAWRENCE, McCARTY, SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ., CONCUR.

15