Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GREEK ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL SAINT GEORGE AND GEORGE BONATSOS v. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY PHILADELPHIA AND VINCENT J. FUMO (05/02/88)

decided: May 2, 1988.

GREEK ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL OF SAINT GEORGE AND GEORGE BONATSOS, APPELLANTS
v.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND VINCENT J. FUMO, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, in the case of Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Saint George and George Bonatsos v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia, No. 2824, January Term, 1986.

COUNSEL

Harold R. Berk, Harold R. Berk Associates, for appellants.

Gabriel L. I. Bevilacqua, with him, George C. McFarland, Jr., Saul, Ewing, Remick, & Saul, and Robert J. Guerra, of Counsel, for appellee, Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia.

Robert J. Sugarman, Sugarman & Cohen, for appellee, Vincent J. Fumo.

Judges Doyle and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle. Judge Colins did not participate in the decision in this case. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Palladino.

Author: Doyle

[ 115 Pa. Commw. Page 533]

Before us for consideration is an appeal by the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Saint George and George Bonatsos (collectively, the Cathedral) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which denied the Cathedral's request for an injunction prohibiting the Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia (Authority) from entering into a contract with Vincent J. Fumo (Fumo). The contract arose as a result of Fumo's bid to rehabilitate certain property situated in Philadelphia. The trial court thoroughly set forth the relevant facts in this case and we shall quote its opinion, authored by Judge D'Alessandro, at length:

In May, 1985, the defendant, the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia (RDA) issued an invitation for proposals ('Invitation') for the redevelopment of Parcels 60 and 60A, more commonly known as 255 and 253 South Ninth Street, in the Washington Square West, Unit No. 2 redevelopment area. Before addressing the details of the 'Invitation', which is the basis of the captioned lawsuit, a brief digression is warranted, to explain the general procedure by which the RDA invites competitive bidding and eventually arrives at selecting a developer.

Prior to issuing an invitation for proposal for the redevelopment of parcels, the RDA prepares a package available to all interested bidders containing the following information: minimum bid price, a copy of the urban renewal plan for the area, use controls, zoning classification, appraisal data, rehabilitation guidelines, deadline for submission, and other material information. The RDA then advertises in several local newspapers, inviting competitive bids from all interested

[ 115 Pa. Commw. Page 534]

    parties for the purchase and development of these parcels. The information package, also known as the Invitation, is mailed to all individuals and developers who express an interest in the properties.

Prior to the date of submission, the RDA conducts tours of the properties and holds a prebid conference where questions are answered regarding the Invitation. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is subsequently sent to all attendees.

In order for a proposal to be considered it must meet the requirements of the Invitation. The bidder must provide all of the required submissions, including the development, plan of financing and the developer's qualifications. Further, the proposal must be submitted by the specified deadline.

After the deadline for submission, the RDA conducts a bid opening, where all the bids are given a preliminary check for completeness as to the major elements required by the Invitation. Those bids that comply are forwarded to the Technical Evaluation Committee*fn3 for further review. They examine each bid in greater detail and make their recommendation to the Board of the RDA. The Board then evaluates their recommendation and may, in certain cases, hear from representatives of interested parties at a public meeting. After a discussion, the Board then selects a proposal and notifies the successful bidder that his proposal has been selected. A contract is then prepared, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.