Bidders on public works contracts are regularly asked to submit additional documents with their bids. The number and complexity of these submissions increase with evolving procurement statutes and regulations. It’s not surprising that bidders start to think of them as “standard boilerplate”—the bid price is firm, but the other stuff can be cleaned up after bid opening. That may or may not be accurate.
In a recent New Jersey case, an appellate court upheld rejection of a low bid because the bid bond bore a date prior to the extended deadline for bid opening. Rejection of the second low bid was also upheld because the accompanying certificate of uncompleted work was pre-dated. In each case, the deviation was material and could not be waived. The information could not be corrected or supplemented after bid opening.
In the other case in this issue, the South Dakota Supreme Court addressed for the first time the need for expert opinion to support a project owner’s claims against design professionals and a specialty constructor.
