ÿWPCH PNÎ(RnáÿH4ç»à!u—õœôEž”+ÿºý³]ë\ú„½û™uŠDªŒ]ùDìîÅG[Bw3ÅôÐû±{·ÁŸR+½Â)²]¹ÖZ TÎù&º’¸\Y·.ÐÝtù^ø |ß¾úóŒä 398 ÖÙno0"ñÞ»–· PiÜoãèn©ÜÒ8Wæ>\ÚsyJú‹…ø Ò^b®¸^ìòKÝž™ó÷±î]Úfñ7Ýt3Ï9ù%éD›Àh3¢^Cµ‰wnr×y9Z@øžqp¹ Ùûª®ù¬ËœœôöÉ Zpi ÎWg ±¡ Ù]Ü-FgÏVl¤`Oø¬gžâÓ`Áã4Å—Ÿ\¬e’˜ÁJ]~ò| êhÆ.0¡|¦ )\^ßáI9õDá©Q4Œé.cÌæô:H^i5ýíÙÚ'Ç¡ØÐ‰·ˆúsY9Ã>øÿa-Â_ºÓùfÂЧ-±˜&»¹ ±5ÞºPÕ•!å8Á :öÐnb¼/›8 &51Ku‘îétÍv½î²ÂY´»Î$IL’c8à'Ï8É-3½S:Y/5£A²¨D Ïq)‚›AJ‹6›ûÅü®dw O-Ó¿`¼)ø/?Ÿ/2Õ1)ïça_¦ö˵+_`4@T 0(c‹w“—UN™ 0lç 0DS m—#!®NÏ ^ Ñ 1‡Ý UNd 0c² 6 1uK 72À ò Yú U@SU:““UBÍ % B AQ2ƃ 0DI 0D 0DÑÑ D3tpO'ÔøÔô3|x($¡¡(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3úÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0ΖŠ'L (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à ,Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X¨¼XXXÔÔ€èéZçXX¨¼ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€_7çèéZÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€10,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó##37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)  OÝ ƒúÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÐ  ÐÒܰÒà 4 àÔ€X0)XXXÔÔ€&¼ %XX0)ÔThere€is€no€dispute€that€Evans€and€the€subs€listed€on€Evansðð€bid€had€the€appropriate€licenseÐ ¢š Ðclassifications€and€limits.(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX dZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó&&&&'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔѰÑÒܰÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ8€ÒXXdêdÈ8ÑÔ€X0)XXXÔÔ€Š„‹XX0)Ô€€€€à@M M ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j: `€€@ÿE˜ Àtt¨ØÐ ‰vßÔ_Ôà@44%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆà œ àà ô àÐ   ÐÌÌó óÌÌÌSOLUTIONS€TO€ENVIRONMENTALà0 ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9902„CH„00045Ð ì(#ì(# ÐPROBLEMS,€INC.,à0 < àà0”<(#<(#àà0ì”(#”(#àà0Dì(#ì(#à)Ð  D(#D(# Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€ANDERSON€CHANCERYÌà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellant,à0 < àà0”<(#<(#àà0ì”(#”(#à)Ð  ì(#ì(# Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€HON.€WILLIAM€E.€Ô_ÔLANTRIPÔ_Ô,Ìvs.à0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà0ä Œ (#Œ (#àà0<ä (#ä (#àà0”<(#<(#àà0ì”(#”(#à)€CHANCELLORÐ  ì(#ì(# Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)ÌANDERSON€COUNTY€BOARD€OFà0 ì à)Ð ì(#ì(# ÐEDUCATION;€ANDERSON€COUNTY,€)Ìand€BETTY€LOU€BROOKS,à0 ” àà0ì”(#”(#à)€AFFIRMEDÐ ì(#ì(# Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€ANDÌà 4 àDefendants„Appellees.à0 ” àà0ì”(#”(#à)€REMANDEDÐ ì(#ì(# ÐÌÌÌWILLIAM€S.€Ô_ÔLOCKETTÔ_Ô,€JR.,€and€CRAIG€J.€DONALDSON,€Ô_ÔKENNERLYÔ_Ô,ÏMONTGOMERY€&€FINLEY,€P.C.,€Knoxville,€for€Plaintiff„Appellant.ÌÌW.€LEE€Ô_ÔMADDUXÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔCHAMBLISSÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔBAHNERÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔSTOPHELÔ_Ô,€P.C.,€Chattanooga,€forÏDefendant„Appellee,€Anderson€County€Board€of€Education.ÌÌDEAN€B.€FARMER€and€B.€CHASE€Ô_ÔKIBLERÔ_Ô,€HODGES,€DOUGHTY€&€CARSON,ÏKnoxville,€for€Defendants„Appellees€Anderson€County.ÌÌÌÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  +$$ ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àÔ‡Š„‹‹Š„ÔIn€this€action,€plaintiff€sought€damages€based€on€the€failure€ofÐ  1** Ðdefendants€to€accept€its€bid€for€a€construction€project.€€The€Trial€Judge€grantedÏsummary€judgment€to€defendants,€and€plaintiff€has€appealed.Ìà 4 àà Œ àIn€March€of€1997,€Anderson€County€issued€an€Invitation€to€Bid€toÏsolicit€bids€from€contractors€for€an€addition€to€the€Ô_ÔAndersonvilleÔ_Ô€Elementary€School.€ÏPlaintiff€(ð ðSTEPðð)€is€a€general€contractor€who€does€business€in€Anderson€County,Ð  ;44ýo ÐÔ_Ôand€STEP€prepared€a€bid€for€the€project.€€Along€with€the€Invitation€to€Bid,Ïdefendantsðð€architect€on€the€project,€Mike€Brady,€prepared€Instructions€to€Bidders,ÏSupplementary€Instructions€to€Bidders,€and€bid€envelopes.€€Brady€testified€that€heÏprepared€these€documents€the€same€way€he€had€done€for€years.€€The€Invitation€to€BidÏstates:ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àAll€bidders€must€be€licensed€contractors€as€required€by€theÏContractorððs€Licensing€Act€of€1976,€license€number,€date€ofÏexpiration€of€license,€license€limitation,€and€that€part€of€licenseÏclassification€applying€to€the€bid€must€be€placed€on€the€envelopeÏcontaining€the€bid,€otherwise€the€bid€cannot€be€opened€orÏconsidered.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÓ  Óà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àThe€Owner€reserves€the€right€to€reject€any€or€all€bids€and€toÏwaive€any€informalities€therein.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÓ  Ó*€*€*ÌÓ  Óà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àAnderson€County€reserves€the€right€to€waive€any€information€inÏor€to€reject€any€or€all€bids€and€to€accept€the€bid€deemed€favorableÏto€the€interest€of€Anderson€County.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓw Óà 4 àà Œ àThe€Supplementary€Instructions€to€Bidders€(issued€simultaneously€withÏthe€Invitation€to€Bid)€state:ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð à.€.€.€the€sealed€envelope€containing€the€bid€shall€be€plainlyÏmarked€on€the€outside€with€the€bidding€contractorððs€licenseÏnumber,€date€of€expiration€of€the€license,€license€limitation,€andÏthat€part€of€license€classification€applying€to€the€bid.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àThe€envelopes€prepared€by€Brady€contained€blank€lines€for€theÏcontractorððs€name,€license€number,€classification,€and€date€of€expiration€of€theÏlicense,€but€had€no€blank€line€for€the€monetary€license€limitation.€€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð62„6„119(b),€controls€biddingÏrequirements,€and€states:ÌÓ‰Óà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àAny€person€or€entity€involved€in€the€preparation€of€the€invitationÏto€bid€or€comparable€bid€documents€shall€direct€that€the€name,Ïlicense€number,€expiration€date€thereof,€and€license€classificationÏof€the€contractors€applying€to€bid€for€the€prime€contract€and€forÏthe€electrical,€plumbing,€heating,€ventilation,€and€airÏconditioning€contracts,€appear€on€the€outside€of€the€envelopeÏcontaining€the€bid€except€when€the€bid€is€in€an€amount€less€thanÏtwenty-five€thousand€dollars€($25,000).€€€Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÐ :33 ÐÓÓà 4 àà Œ àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð62„6„108(a)€provides€that€the€contractorððsÏBoard€can€make€rules€and€regulations,€as€it€deems€best,€as€long€as€they€are€notÏinconsistent€with€the€laws€of€Tennessee.€€The€Board€promulgated€such€rules,€and€oneÏof€these€rules,€viz.€0680„1„.24,€is€at€issue€here.€€The€Rule€reads€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð à(1)€Pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð62„6„119(b),€electrical,€plumbing,Ïheating€ventilation€and€air€conditioning€subcontractors€biddingÏto€a€prime€contractor€shall€furnish€evidence€of€a€license€withÏappropriate€classification€and€monetary€limit,€regardless€of€howÏthe€bid€is€transmitted;€provided€however€failure€to€comply€withÏthis€rule€shall€not€require€nonconsideration€of€the€subcontractorððsÏbid€if€appropriately€licensed,€but€said€subcontractor€shall€beÏsubject€to€discipline€by€the€Board.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð à(2)€Any€prime€contractor€submitting€a€bid€pursuant€to€T.C.A.Ïðð62„6„119(b)€shall€list€only€one€electrical€contractor,€oneÏplumbing€contractor,€and€one€heating,€ventilation€airÏconditioning€contractor€with€appropriate€classification€andÏmonetary€limit€or€the€bid€shall€not€be€considered.€€Award€of€aÏsubcontract€to€one€not€listed€on€the€base€bid€envelope€inÏviolation€of€T.C.A.€ðð62„6„119(b)€will€be€subject€to€review€andÏdisciplinary€action€by€the€Board.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àWhen€STEP€submitted€its€bid€for€the€addition€project,€it€listed€theÏmonetary€license€limitations€on€the€outside€of€the€envelope,€as€did€some€of€the€otherÏbidders.€€Evans€Contracting€and€a€few€other€bidders€did€not€list€the€monetary€licenseÏlimitations€on€the€outside€of€the€bid€envelopes.€€ò ò€ó óAll€of€the€bids€were€opened€andÐ '  Ðconsidered,€and€Evans€was€the€low€bidder,€and€was€ultimately€awarded€the€contract.€ÏSTEPððs€bid€was€the€second€lowest.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àBoth€plaintiff€and€defendants€filed€motions€for€summary€judgment,€andÏthe€Trial€Court,€in€sustaining€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€judgment,€filed€anÏOpinion€which€states:Ìà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àÓÓThis€matter€is€before€the€Court€upon€motions€for€Summary€JudgmentÏfiled€by€all€parties.€€Because€I€find€that€there€are€no€disputed€materialÏfacts,€Summary€Judgment€is€appropriate.€€I€am€of€the€opinion€that€theÏfailure€of€Evans€Contracting,€Inc.€to€state€a€monetary€limit€on€the€bidÏenvelope€did€not€preclude€Anderson€county€from€opening€the€bid€andÏawarded€the€bid€to€this€contractor€whose€bid€was€the€lowest€bid€andÏwho€otherwise€met€all€requirements€of€the€bid€specifications€andÏapplicable€law.Ð:33Œ (#Œ (# Їà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àI€am€of€the€opinion€that€neither€T.C.A.€ðð62„6„119(b)€nor€RuleÏ0680„1„.24(2)€prohibit€the€opening€of€the€bid€nor€the€award€ofÏthe€bid€to€the€successful€low€bidder.€€The€failure€to€place€theÏmonetary€limit€on€the€outside€of€the€bid€envelope€was€not€aÏsubstantial€variation€and€the€defendant€explicitly€retained€theÏexpress€right€to€waive€informalities€or€irregularities€and€to€awardÏthe€bid€which€was€in€the€Countyððs€best€interest.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àThe€standard€of€review€of€the€Trial€Court's€granting€of€summaryÏjudgment€is€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900Ð   ÐS.W.2d€23€(Tenn.1995).€€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àSTEP€argues€that€Rule€0680„1„.24(2)€requires€bidders€to€place€theÏmonetary€license€limits€on€the€outside€of€the€bid€envelope,€or€else€their€bids€shouldÏnot€be€considered.€€Defendants€counter€that€this€rule€should€be€read€as€requiring€thatÏthe€only€subcontractors€who€may€be€listed€are€those€who€have€the€appropriateÏmonetary€license€limitations€(i.e.€read€ð ðwithðð€as€ð ðwho€haveðð).€€€From€a€plain€readingÏof€Rule€0680„1„.24,€either€interpretation€is€possible.€€Thus,€the€rule€is€ambiguous.òò€Ð  ÐSee€In€re€Conservatorship€of€Clayton,óó€914€S.W.2d€84€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995.)€€Ð ! Ðà 4 àà Œ àWhere€a€rule€or€regulation€is€ambiguous,€it€is€proper€to€invoke€theÏprinciples€of€statutory€construction.€€òòWhittemore€v.€Brentwood€Planning€Com'n.,€CityÐ % Ðof€Brentwoodóó,€835€S.W.2d€11€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Accordingly,€we€may€considerÐ '  Ðthe€existing€law,€the€circumstances€and€debate€surrounding€the€enactment€of€the€rule,Ïand€the€evil€sought€to€be€addressed.€€òòIn€re€Conservatorship€of€Claytonóó.€€Ð +$$ Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€record€contains€a€transcript€of€the€taped€hearing€surrounding€theÏenactment€of€this€rule,€and€the€only€message€that€is€clear€from€the€transcript€is€that€theÏBoard€wanted€to€clarify€the€statute€(presumably€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð62„6„119),€toÏmake€it€easier€for€contractors€on€bid€day,€and€to€prevent€bid„shopping,€i.e.,€using€oneÏsub€to€bid€the€job€and€then€using€a€different€sub€to€do€the€work.€€There€is€noÏdiscussion€to€support€the€argument€that€the€Board€intended€for€the€license€limits€toÏappear€on€the€outside€of€the€bid€envelope€for€any€specific€purpose.€€Ð 922 Ðà 4 àà Œ àConsidering€the€entire€statutory€scheme,€when€the€Rule€and€the€StatuteÏare€read€together,€we€are€of€the€opinion€that€contractors€who€have€the€appropriateÏlicense€classification€and€limit€should€be€listed,€but€not€that€the€limit€has€to€be€listed.€€€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð62„6„119(b)€requires€certain€items€to€be€listed€on€the€bid€envelope,Ïbut€does€not€require€the€license€limit€to€be€listed.€€Since€the€Board€members€in€theÏhearing€surrounding€this€rule€discuss€clarifying€the€statute€and€preventing€bid„¼shopping,€it€would€follow€that€their€intent€was€to€ensure€that€only€properly€licensedÏcontractors€be€listed€and€used,€but€not€that€some€additional€formality€regarding€theÏbid€envelope€be€imposed.€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àMoreover,€it€is€well„settled€that€an€administrative€body€cannot€makeÏrules€which€are€inconsistent€with€statutes€on€the€same€subject.€€òòTasco€Developing€andÐ  ÐBuilding€Corp.€v.€Longóó,€368€S.W.2d€65€(Tenn.€1963);€òòKaylor€v.€Bradleyóó,€912€S.W.2dÐ  Ð728€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).€€In€this€regard,€STEP€argues€that€the€rule,€as€it€interpretsÏit,€merely€supplements€the€statute.€€In€actuality,€if€this€interpretation€was€adopted,€itÏwould€do€more€than€it€suggests.€€The€statute€specifically€enumerates€those€thingsÏwhich€must€be€on€the€outside€of€the€bid€envelope,€but€if€the€Rule€were€read€as€STEPÏinsists,€another€requirement€would€be€added€above€and€beyond€what€is€requisite€inÏthe€statute.€€Thus,€the€Board€would€have,€in€effect,€amended€the€statute,€which€isÏimpermissible.€€òòTasco€Developing€and€Building€Corp.óóÐ +$$ Ðà 4 àà Œ àReading€the€rule€in€its€entirety,€we€conclude€the€Board€intended€merelyÏfor€the€contractors€to€furnish€evidence€of€their€license€classification€and€limit€to€theÏprime€contractor,€as€provided€in€subsection€(1),€and€that€the€contractor€should€thenÏlist€one€sub€from€each€category€who€had€the€appropriate€classification€and€limits€(asÏproven)€on€the€bid,€as€provided€in€subsection€(2),€who€they€will€use€to€actuallyÏperform€the€work€if€the€contract€is€awarded€to€them.Ìà 4 àà Œ àBrady€obviously€interpreted€the€Rule€in€accordance€with€the€plaintiffððsÐ 922 Ðinsistence,€because€he€prepared€the€bid€documents€stating€that€the€monetary€limits€hadÏto€be€on€the€outside€of€the€bid€envelope€(even€though€he€did€not€have€a€blank€spaceÏfor€the€same€on€the€outside€of€the€bid€envelope).€€Brady€could€not,€however,€changeÏthe€requirements€of€the€statute€any€more€than€the€Board€could.€€Since€the€licenseÏlimitation€was€not€required€to€be€on€the€bid€envelope€by€statute€or€the€rule,€thisÏtechnical€inaccuracy€in€the€bidding€instructions€was€properly€waived€by€theÏdefendants,€as€the€Trial€Court€found.€€As€the€middle€section€of€this€Court€stated€inÏòòMarta€v.€Metro.€Gov.€of€Nashvilleóó,€842€S.W.2d€611,€619€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992):Ð  ÐÓÓà8 4 àà0Œ 4Ð 4Ð àSince€procuring€goods€and€services€is€the€type€of€routine€activityÏthat€is€best€left€to€governmental€officials,€most€courts€haveÏrecognized€that€public€procurement€authorities€have€wideÏdiscretion€with€regard€to€accepting€bids€or€any€of€the€otherÏdetails€of€entering€into€a€contract.Ð Œ Ð Œ Ð  ÐÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àThe€contract€was€awarded€to€Evans,€who€was€the€lowest€bidder€andÏwho€met€all€the€requirements€of€the€statute€and€the€rule.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р Ðà 4 àà Œ àWe€affirm€the€summary€judgment€entered€by€the€Trial€Court.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Trial€Court,€with€cost€of€the€appealÏassessed€to€Solutions€to€Environmental€Problems,€Inc.Ô#†Š„‹‹Š„ #ÔÐ % ÐÓÓÌÌÌÌà@‚‚+‚àòòˆà D àÌóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð ,%% Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌÔ‡Š„‹‹Š„ÔCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ð 5.. ÐÔ#†Š„‹‹Š„Í:#ÔÐ 6// ЇÌ___________________________ÌÔ‡Š„‹‹Š„ÔD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.Ô#†Š„‹‹Š„q;#Ô