also concurring:
I concur in the judgment of this case, but like Justice Heiple, I disagree with the majority’s analysis.
I agree with the majority that the petition for mandamus was properly dismissed because plaintiff was no longer entitled to that particular form of relief or entitled to monetary damages. I am unpersuaded, however, that the County’s determination of the "lowest responsible bidder,” as alleged, did not suggest an arbitrary exercise of discretion.
According to the statutory criteria, the County, in determining the lowest responsible bidder, shall take into consideration the supplied articles’ "suitability to the requirements of the county.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 34, par. 5 — 1022(2).) The county board’s minutes reflect that it awarded the contract to the Resource Center because of the Resource Center’s past performance and food service training program for the mentally handicapped. On its face, this determination does not indicate the consideration contemplated under the statute. Furthermore, I am unconvinced by the majority’s reasoning that "reasonable benefits to the County arising from [the contract] bid” are properly considered as an aspect of the food service’s suitability. The majority’s reasoning appears to stretch the statutory criteria too far so as to conclude that no favoritism was indicated.
Additionally, the distinction made by the majority between this case and Cardinal Glass Co. is not substantially meaningful. I cannot accept that a preference for local contractors, and their services, suggests favoritism any more than a preference based on a contractor’s past performance and the operation of a social program.
Considering the obligation to construe pleadings liberally, based on the factual allegations and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, the allegations here suggested some degree of favoritism.