Dunnet Bay Construction Co. v. Borggen

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-state officials’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 and Title VI action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff-contractor’s equal protection rights and engaged in race discrimination when defendants refused to award plaintiff federally-funded road project contract because plaintiff, which was owned by two Caucasian males, had failed to meet goals regarding minimum percentage use of subcontractors that were owned by women or minorities as set forth in defendant’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program, even though plaintiff was lowest bidder on said project. While record suggested that plaintiff’s bid was rejected for failing to meet DBE goal regarding minimum use of socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, plaintiff did not establish that it would have been awarded contract but for its failure to meet DBE goal since plaintiff’s bid was $1.3 million over program estimate. Ct. further noted that any racial or gender group could qualify as socially and economically disadvantage individual if its gross receipts from prior jobs was under certain level, and that plaintiff could not qualify as socially and economically disadvantaged company because it had made too much money. As such, plaintiff could not establish that race or gender of its owners was barrier to equal competition. Fact that defendant did not award contract to anyone and conducted second bidding process in which plaintiff, although meeting DBE goals, was not lowest bidder, did not require different result.