No. 03-2060.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
March 16, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for PolkCounty, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.
Siemens Building Technologies, Inc. appeals from the district court granting summary judgment to Polk County, Iowa. AFFIRMED.
Andrew Howie and Michael P. Mallaney of Hudson, Mallaney
Schindler, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.
Candy Morgan, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel, Zimmer and Hecht, JJ., and Brown, S.J.[*]
BROWN, S.J.
In this declaratory judgment action the district court ruled defendant Polk County, Iowa (Polk County) was correct in requiring competitive bidding for the building automation system in its new arena. Disagreeing, the plaintiff, Siemens Building Technologies, Inc. (Siemens), appeals.
Polk County is in the midst of a $217 million project known as the Iowa Events Center, a combination arena and exhibit hall. Siemens prepared and submitted a proposal for the design, programming, training and verification services, and hardware components for the building’s automation, fire alarm and security systems.
Polk County originally took the position Siemens’s proposal did not require public bids, but after a competitor complained the county reversed direction, and now is requiring public bids for the items in the Siemens’s proposal. Siemens then commenced a breach of contract and declaratory judgment action against the county. The breach of contract claim has been dismissed and Siemens now seeks a ruling that Iowa Code section 331.341 (2001) does not require competitive bidding for the work covered by its proposal.
Opposing motions for summary judgment were filed.[1]
After hearing the motions, the district court ruled section 331.341 applies to Siemens’s proposal. The pertinent part of Iowa Code section 331.341 provides:
When the estimated cost of a public improvement . . . exceeds [fifty thousand dollars] the board shall follow the contract letting procedures provided for cities in sections 384.95 to 384.103. . . . As used in this section, “public improvement” means the same as defined in section 384.95 as modified by this subsection.
Iowa Code § 331.341(1). Iowa Code section 384.95 defines “public improvement” as
any building or construction work, either within or outside the corporate limits of a [county], to be paid for in whole or in part by the use of funds of the [county], regardless of sources, including a building or improvement constructed or operated jointly with any other public or private agency. . . .
The phrase “building or construction work” is not further defined. What that phrase means is the focal point of the case. In ascertaining the meaning of a statute
[w]e consider not only the language of the statute, but also its subject matter, the object sought to be accomplished, the purpose to be served, underlying policies, remedies provided, and the consequences of various interpretations. We will not construe a statute in a way that would produce impractical or absurd results. Finally, when searching for legislative intent, we look at the whole statute and not the separate parts.
United Fire Cas. Co. v. Acker, 541 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Iowa 1995) (citations omitted).
Before turning to our analysis of the statute we should discuss in more detail what is involved in Siemens’s five-million-dollar proposal. Substantial evidence supports this succinct summary of the proposal by the district court:
The building controls in Siemens’s proposal include the fire alarm systems made up of plastic and metal components with wiring in conduit. The smoke exhaust system, emergency power controls, fire fighter telephone system, elevator shutdown, and emergency lighting controls are also part of the building control system. Additionally, the system includes temperature and humidity controls, thermostats, computer programs and hardware for the operation of fans, dampers, pumps, large heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment and lighting.
The components are attached to the building on walls, in conduit, and to steel unistruts within the structure of the building. The points which make up the system are above the ceilings and under the floors. The wiring is embedded within the building and the entire system is customized to the building. While some of the system components and materials could be used in other buildings, the configuration is customized to this facility.
The building would not be habitable without the materials Siemens will provide, and it could not be used for its intended purpose, nor could it be open to the public, without the building control systems. Siemens concedes it will be supplying materials and hardware that will become a part of the building, but emphasizes that it will not install any of the systems and hardware components which it will be providing.
We are somewhat uncertain from its brief as to Siemens’s position regarding how “building” is used in the statute. “Building” may be construed as a stand-alone word, with “construction work” as a separate phrase. Considered thus, the statute would effectively read “[a]ny building . . . to be paid for in whole or in part. . . .” Alternatively, “building” may be considered as modifying “work,” so that we are dealing with “building . . . work” and “construction work.”[2]
In either event Siemens’s position, as we understand it, is that in section 384.95 “building” is used as a verb, meaning to construct or erect, that is, it is used in its putting-something-together sense. From this, Siemens concludes to be involved in building or building work requires a hands-on participation in the actual putting together of the structure — a “bricks and mortar” statute, in Siemens’s view. Since its proposal does not involve installing the various systems and hardware which it is to supply, it insists it is excluded from the statute by definition.
We believe, as did the district court, that this view is too restrictive. In the scenario in which we assume the words, “building” and “construction,” both modify the word “work” in the statute, “work” is used as a noun. In this form it is defined to include “bodily or mental effort exerted to do or make something.” Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary 2107 (2nd ed. 1987) (emphasis added). We construe the phrase “building . . . work” to mean work performed on a building. The issue, then, is whether “work” performed on a “building” embraces Siemens’s comprehensive proposal to furnish design and program systems together with the actual hardware to implement the systems, and we conclude that it does. We agree with the district court that the plain meaning of the term “building or construction work” includes Siemens’s proposal.
In the alternate scenario, assuming the word “building” does not modify “work,” we believe it is used as a noun, not a verb.[3] As the district court noted, it is used as a noun in the latter part of the same section.[4] Also, the word “any” is often a determiner, that is, a word that announces a noun or noun phrase.[5] Even if the word is considered ambiguous, and consequently subject to statutory construction, our conclusion would be the same. If we view “building” in its putting-something-together sense, as Siemens proposes, then the term “construction” becomes redundant. “Building” and “construction” have the same meaning when used in this fashion, both terms signifying the act of assembling some tangible project. See Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary 238 (2nd ed. 1987). In construing statutes, we presume the legislature did not employ redundant terms, or those which add no meaning. State v. Ahitow, 544 N.W.2d 270, 273 (Iowa 1996). On the other hand, “construction work,” as we view it, includes many public improvement projects which are not buildings, such as roads, parks, and so on. This interpretation gives meaning to both terms in the statute.
The district court concluded that classifying Siemens’s proposal as a public improvement, as used in Iowa Code section 331.341, was justified by the language of the statutes and is consistent with the liberal interpretation given competitive bidding requirements so as to protect the taxpayers. Master Builders v. Polk County, 653 N.W.2d 382, 394 (Iowa 2002); see also Istari Const., Inc. v. City of Muscatine, 330 N.W.2d 798, 800 (Iowa 1983) (“[C]ompetitive bidding in the granting of municipal contracts `is employed for the protection of the public to secure by competition among bidders, the best results at the lowest price, and to forestall fraud, favoritism and corruption in the making of contracts.'” (quoting C. Rhyne, The Law of Local Government Operations § 27.6, at 942 (1980).). “Competitive bidding requirements are strictly construed against the governing authority and this is especially so where non-applicablity of a competitive bidding ordinance is asserted.” 10 Eugene McQuillan, The Law of Municipal Corporations, § 29.28, at 362 (3rd ed. 1999).
We hold the district court was correct in granting summary judgment to Polk County.
AFFIRMED.