North Dakota's Supreme Court says a construction company wasn't unfairly denied work on the new Grand Forks County jail, a ruling that a contractors' group says could undermine state laws on competitive bidding.

Baukol Builders Inc. of Grand Forks sued the county when it lost a contract to build the jail's exterior shell, even though the company said its $3.66 million bid made it the lowest responsible bidder among three competitors.

Construction Engineers Inc., which bid $3.7 million, was awarded the work, in part because the company promised to finish the job almost three months earlier. Construction Engineers has offices in Fargo and Grand Forks.

Northeast District Judge Lee Christofferson ruled the county had some leeway to consider Construction Engineers' quicker completion date in deciding to award the contract, even if the company's bid was higher. He dismissed Baukol's lawsuit in February 2006 after hearing arguments at a two-day trial.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling written by Justice Dale Sandstrom, upheld Christofferson's decision.

The judge "did not err in construing the applicable competitive bidding statutes to authorize a governing body to exercise some discretion in awarding a public improvement construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder," Sandstrom wrote.

The Associated General Contractors of North Dakota, a trade organization that represents construction companies, filed a brief in the case supporting Baukol.

If the Supreme Court sided with Construction Engineers, the organization argued, "the practice of awarding bids on public projects in North Dakota will be significantly modified." Grand Forks could have asked the companies to present cost options based on different project completion times, but it did not, the organization said.

"The bidding process can only work effectively, i.e. result in the lowest and best price to the public, if everyone bids the same job," the contractors' brief said. "If a public entity can change the plans, specifications or the bid requirements at a whim, or after the fact, bidders are not bidding the same job."

The jail, which cost $16 million to build, opened in the fall of 2006. The exterior shell construction bid proposals were opened in August 2005. Construction Engineers promised to finish the job by May 7, 2006, while Baukol's completion date was July 31, 2006.

Baukol argued the county commission's decision to award the contract to Construction Engineers was based on the job's completion date, possible interest savings on construction expenditures, and the prospect of earning extra money for housing federal prisoners at the jail. None of those factors were listed in the bid specifications, the company contended.

However, the bid documents asked each company to specify a completion date for the building, which related to the issues of federal prisoner revenue and interest expense, the Supreme Court's opinion says.

"The county's decision to award the contract to Construction Engineers was not based on unwritten criteria," Sandstrom wrote.