## Facts

- The City of Birmingham sought bids for a replacement public-safety radio communications system under Alabama’s Competitive Bid Law.
- The solicitation permitted bids on multiple technical alternatives, including systems compatible with APCO 16 and systems compatible with interim APCO Project 25 (APCO 25) standards.
- Two bidders responded: Ericsson bid an APCO 16 system for about $9.75 million; Motorola bid an APCO 25 system for about $11.336 million.
- City officials, including the Mayor, concluded that APCO 25 better met the City’s long-term needs despite higher cost.
- The City rejected the original bids and proceeded to negotiate and contract with Motorola for an APCO 25-based system.
- Ericsson, the lower bidder, alleged the procurement circumvented the Competitive Bid Law and that Motorola improperly influenced City officials.
- In federal diversity litigation, the district court certified questions of Alabama law to the Alabama Supreme Court; after receiving answers, the district court found improper influence, voided the contract, and enjoined performance.
- Motorola appealed; Ericsson defended and cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Alabama’s Competitive Bid Law permitted the City to solicit and select among alternative technical bids and to choose the higher-priced alternative based on evaluative criteria.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding Motorola improperly influenced City officials so as to render the contract void under Alabama law.
3. Whether voiding the contract and enjoining performance was an available remedy for a disappointed bidder absent a proven statutory violation.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment voiding the contract and granting injunctive relief.
- The court treated the Alabama Supreme Court’s certified-question answers as controlling on the meaning of the Competitive Bid Law.
- The court held that the record did not support the district court’s finding of legally actionable “improper influence” sufficient to invalidate the contract.
- Because no violation warranting judicial invalidation was shown, Ericsson was not entitled to the injunctive relief awarded below.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alabama’s Competitive Bid Law, a public entity may solicit bids on alternative specifications or standards if the solicitation preserves competition and sufficiently describes the alternatives.
- The “sole source” exception to competitive bidding is construed narrowly and requires strict proof; newer or evolving technology does not automatically qualify.
- Competitive bid statutes protect the public interest; a disappointed bidder must prove a statutory violation or unlawful favoritism undermining competitive bidding, not merely that it offered a lower price.
- On appeal, factual findings are reviewed for clear error, while interpretations of state law are reviewed independently, guided by the state high court’s authoritative construction.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld Birmingham’s contract with Motorola, holding that Alabama law allowed alternative bidding and governmental discretion to select the preferred alternative, and that the evidentiary record did not justify a finding of improper influence or the remedy of voiding the contract.


Ericsson GE Mobile Commc'ns, Inc. v. Motorola Commc'ns & Elecs., Inc., 120 F.3d 216 (11th Cir. 1997)