Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in case of In Re: Contract No. 6936-81-781, Electrical Work Willow Grove Interchange, dated July 14, 1982.
Mary Ann Rossi, with her Ross A. Unruh, MacElree, Harvey, Gallagher, O'Donnell & Featherman, Ltd., for petitioner.
E. J. Strassburger, Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Craig and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
Petitioner, Philips Brothers Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Philips), appeals the adjudication of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (Commission) which declared Philips in default on its bid bond.
In May of 1982 the Commission advertised for bids upon which to award contracts for the expansion and renovation of the Turnpike's Willow Grove Interchange. In response to the advertisement, Philips submitted
the low bid on the contract for electrical work. Two days after the bids were opened, Philips attempted to withdraw its bid due to a $100,000 mathematical error in its computation. The Commission refused to accept the withdrawal, and on June 15 awarded the contract to Philips. Following the refusal of the Commission to hold a hearing pursuant to the Act of January 23, 1974, P.L. 9, 73 P.S. §§ 1601-08 (hereinafter referred to as the Bid Withdrawal Act), Philips petitioned this Court in our original jurisdiction, requesting that we order the Commission to comply with the terms of the Act. On September 1, 1982, this Court held that we had no original jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and transferred the petition to the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas.*fn1
During the pendency of this petition, the Commission met on July 13, 1982 and formally adopted a resolution declaring Philips to be in default on its bid bond. In response, Philips filed the instant petition in our appellate mode, requesting review of the Commission's resolution. On September 23, 1982, a stay was granted by this Court.*fn2 On December 6, 1982, the Commission filed a Motion to Quash for lack of jurisdiction, which was directed to be heard together with the instant petition.
In its Motion to Quash, the Commission argues that the Commonwealth Court has no appellate
jurisdiction in this case because it lacks original jurisdiction over the Commission. However, this issue has already been considered and resolved in the instant petition by the memorandum opinion of October 1, 1982, granting petitioner's Motion for Stay. In this opinion, Judge Lehman correctly ...