THE LEMOINE COMPANY METRO SERVICE MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC AND THE MCDONNEL GROUP LLC v. THE ERNEST MORIAL EXHIBITION HALL AUTHORITY JERRY REYES IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE ERNEST MORIAL NEW ORLEANS EXHIBITION HALL AUTHORITY AND NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC FACILITY MANAGEMENT INC (2023)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2023-C-00763 c/w No. 2023-C-00775 THE LEMOINE COMPANY, L.L.C., METRO SERVICE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, AND THE MCDONNEL GROUP, LLC VS. THE ERNEST N. MORIAL EXHIBITION HALL AUTHORITY, JERRY REYES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE ERNEST N. MORIAL NEW ORLEANS EXHIBITION HALL AUTHORITY AND NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC FACILITY MANAGEMENT, INC. On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans Civil PER CURIAM In light of the unique and extenuating circumstances presented herein, and given the time-sensitive nature of the ongoing project, the court of appeal is reversed. The judgment of the trial court, which found the Authority's decision to award the contract to AECOM-Hunt/Broadmoor was not arbitrary and capricious, is reinstated. 1

WEIMER, C.J., dissents and would grant and docket.

This matter presents important legal issues involving significant public works projects. While I am not suggesting the conclusion reached by my colleagues is incorrect as a matter of law, the conclusion was nonetheless reached without the opportunity to review the full record. Granting and docketing this matter would provide this court an opportunity to fully analyze the issues, interpret the relevant statutory law, and issue an opinion providing a greater level of certainty on how the law in this area should be applied. The litigants in this case, as well as others who are engaged in the public works arena, would be better served by this court's guidance following that more complete evaluation of the law.

Genovese, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

There are no unique and extenuating circumstances in this case. The facts are undisputed. Simply stated, the defendant board issued a request for qualifications (RFQ) to select a contractor for its project in accordance with La. R.S. 38:2225.2.4.

Section 7.9(3) of the RFQ requires that a contractor (AECOM) who submits a proposal seeking an award of the project be “licensed in Building Construction.” AECOM is a registered partnership and deemed a distinct juridical person; however, this juridical entity (AECOM), a registered partnership, was not a licensed contractor as is required by the RFQ. There is a key distinction between an alleged joint venture and a partnership. AECOM cannot avoid the RFQ licensure requirements of a partnership by merely claiming to be, or calling itself, a joint venture. The board's decision to award the contract to AECOM in abject disregard of the RFQ requirements is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious. Why have regulations and statutes if they are not required to be followed or enforced?

I find the court of appeal decision to be legally correct. I dissent from the scant per curiam and would affirm the court of appeal.

Weimer, C.J., dissents and would grant and docket and assigns reasons. Genovese, J., dissents and assigns reasons.