Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County The Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hill, Justice.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN,*fn1 HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
[¶1] Ethan L. Call filed a complaint in district court after making an unsuccessful construction bid to the Thayne, Wyoming, City Council (the "Town of Thayne"). The district court granted the Town of Thayne's combined motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss and Call appeals. We summarily affirm.
[¶2] Call states four issues:
1. The district court erred in dismissing the Complaint filed by [Call], as a pro se litigant, for failure to state a claim.
2. The actions of [the Town of Thayne] during the bid selection process deprived [Call] of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured under the Constitution and laws.
3. [The Town of Thayne] in awarding the bid to [its] 'preferred bidder' failed to do its duty to provide an independent observation of the evaluation and selection process in bidding the Canal Beautification Project for which [it was] going to use federal funds.
4. [The Town of Thayne's] publication of an open invitation to bid on the Canal Beautification Project created an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
[¶3] In 2009, the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) awarded the Town of Thayne a grant to assist with landscaping on and around the Thayne canal area adjacent to State Highway 89. The funds were awarded pursuant to federal and state guidelines.
[¶4] After the Town of Thayne put the project out to bid, four bids were submitted, including Call's. Coming in at $29,894, Call was the low bidder. However, due to considerable differences in the bid amounts, the Town Council set up meetings with each bidder. Call missed his meeting with the Town Council. Another bid in the amount of $51,840 appealed to the Town Council and included some "add-ons." In an effort to be fair, the Town Council asked the other three bidders, including Call, to resubmit their bids and include the add-ons.
[¶5] Another bidder was awarded the project on April 22, 2010. On April 28, 2010, Call filed a protest with WYDOT alleging that the Town of Thayne discriminated against his bid. As a result, WYDOT eventually withdrew grant monies for the project, while affording the Town of Thayne an opportunity for ...