Mechanical Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

In Mechanical Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 654 A.2d 119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (SEPTA), the Court considered a similar injunction action that an association filed against SEPTA, in which the association asserted that SEPTA had violated the Separations Act. The question presented in that case was whether SEPTA had complied with the Separations Act in requesting bids for a single design/build contract when it delegated to the prime contractor the duty to solicit bids from subcontractors. The Court, relying upon language from a decision of then-trial court Judge Ralph Cappy, Metz v. Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, concluded that SEPTA could not delegate that function to the prime contractor. The Court quoted Judge Cappy as follows: The legislature clearly intended to keep the expenditure of public funds a process open and clear of any possible manipulations. To remove that process outside the hands of the appointed public officials charged with the duty of expending such funds, would be to infringe the rights of the public. It is clear to this Court that by implementing a procedure whereby the general contractor decides which subcontractor is to receive the work, denies the public their right to be assured that the work is awarded free of personal interest, bias, and prejudice. Furthermore, the Separation Act was intended to protect the materialmen who ... would become subject to the whim of a dishonest or incompetent general contractor; not only in the procedures the general contractor adopted for the award of work, but also for payment of work done. Regardless of whatever bond would be supplied by a general contractor under the proposed procedure, materialmen and subcontractors need the protection guaranteed by the involvement of responsible public officials. SEPTA, 654 A.2d at 121. The Court opined that the interest the Separations Act seeks to protect is the prevention of possible harms to subcontractors and materialmen on individual contracts for public buildings. In addition to recognizing the interest in keeping the contract-award process open in order to protect the interests of taxpayers, the Court stated that it believed "that the legislative purpose of the Separations Act was . . . to protect the plumbing, heating, ventilating and electrical contractors from the potential of dealing with unscrupulous general contractors." SEPTA, 654 A.2d at 122.