On July 26, 2016, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that an unsuccessful bidder on a public contract has standing to sue a public agency for denying them a fair and equal opportunity to compete (Byrne & Jones Enterprises, Inc. v. Monroe City R-1 School District, (July 26, 2016)).

In 2013, the Monroe City R-1 School District began planning a new athletics stadium at Monroe City High School. The District sought bids for the project as well as bids on 13 possible alternates or enhancements to the project.

The only contractors to bid were ATG Sports and Byrne & Jones. Byrne submitted the lowest base bid and the lowest total bid when factoring all 13 alternates. However, the school selected only seven of the alternates, making ATG's bid the lowest. In January 2014, the school district awarded the contract to ATG.

Byrne filed a declaratory judgment against the school district, claiming that the bidding procedures did not allow all bidders a fair opportunity to compete on equal terms. Byrne alleged that the district colluded with ATG and sought to enjoin the district from entering into a contract with ATG. The district filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court sustained, finding that a low bidder has no standing to challenge the award of a public contract to another bidder. The dismissal was affirmed by the court of appeals.

Relying on recent precedent, the Missouri Supreme Court held that under Missouri law unsuccessful bidders that challenge the award of the contract to another bidder on the grounds that they were denied a fair and equal opportunity to compete have standing to assert their claim.

Traditionally, courts held that such bidders lacked standing because the public bidding statute (requiring that public contracts be awarded to the lowest and best bidder) was designed for the benefit and protection of the public, not an individual bidder.

The court here explained that an unsuccessful bidder who was denied a fair opportunity to bid on a public contract (due to collusion or favoritism, for example) is included among those interests to be protected by competitive bidding requirements. As such, these bidders have standing to challenge a public contract award.

The court sustained the dismissal on the grounds that the case was moot. Byrne had not sought a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order and the project had already been completed by ATG..

This decision is important because it identifies a new interest protected under Missouri public bidding requirements. Bidders who previously did not have standing now have a platform to challenge public contracts. It is important to note that this holding extends only to unsuccessful bidders who sue on the grounds that they were denied a fair and equal opportunity to compete.