*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-30187

Percy J. Matherne Contractor, Inc.,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

Grinnell Fire Protection Systems,

Division of Grinnell Corporation,

Defendant-Third Party 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

St. James Parish School Board,

 Third Party

 Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

(94-CV-4-B-M1)

 October 30, 1996 

Before Judges WISDOM, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Grinnell Fire Protection Co.(“Grinnell”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of Matherne Contractor, Inc.(“Matherne”) and the district court’s dismissal of

Grinnell’s third-party claim against the St. James Parish School Board (“School Board”). Grinnell
1 Williams v. Scott, 35 F.3d 159, 161 (5th Cir. 1994).

2

114 So. 2d 860 (La. 1959).

3

Id. at 863.

raises four issues on appeal. Grinnell argues that the district court: (1) improperly concluded that

certain post-bid modifications of a construction contract between a public school board and the

low-bidding general contractor do not violate the Louisiana Public Bid Law, La. R.S. 38:2211, et

seq; (2) improperly concluded that Matherne reasonably relied to its detriment on Grinnell’s bid

under La. Civ. Code art 1967; (3) improperly determined the quantum of Matherne’s damages;

and (4) improperly dismissed Grinnell’s third-party claim against the School Board.

This Court reviews a summary judgment de novo. 

1

 This Court has heard oral argument

and carefully reviewed the briefs and record in this case. We conclude that the district court

properly dismissed the claim against the School Board and properly granted summary judgment

and awarded damages to Matherne.

First, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that certain post-bid modifications of

the Matherne-School Board contract did not violate Louisiana Public Bid Law. Grinnell relies on

W.R. Aldrich & Co. v. Gravity Drainage District Number 1 of Rapides Parish,2 where the

Louisiana Supreme Court held that it was illegal for specifications to be altered after bids had

been received without a new advertisement giving all bidders an opportunity to bid under the new

conditions.3 The Aldrich case is distinguishable from the instant case, however, because in Alrich

the post-bid changes in the project resulted in a new low bidder being awarded the contract. This

manipulation of contract specifications to award the contract to a different bidder clearly violates

the Louisiana Public Bid Law. In the instant case, however, the changes in contract specifications

were negotiated with the original low bidder. The potential for favoritism and fraud is
4

State of Louisiana, Through the Office of the Governor v. L.W. Eaton Construction

Co., 392 So.2d 477, 480 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1980).

5 La Atty Gen. Op. No. 93-118 (Feb. 1993); La. Atty Gen. Op. No. 94-195 (May

1994).

significantly curtailed in these circumstances,4 and the Louisiana Attorney General has consistently

approved such modifications.5

Second, we find that the district court properly found that Matherne reasonably relied to

its detriment on Grinnell’s subcontract bid under La. Civ. Code art. 1967. After confirming

Grinnell’s subcontract bid, Matherne incorporated it into Matherne’s overall bid on the School

Board project. Matherne was the low bidder. After some negotiation, the School Board

accepted the low bid. Grinnell then refused to perform at its subcontract bid price. Matherne

clearly relied on Grinnell’s bid and suffered a legal detriment as a result of this reliance. Based on

these undisputed facts, the district court properly entered summary judgment in Matherne’s favor.

Third, The district court properly determined Matherne’s damages to be those expenses

incurred as a direct result of their detrimental reliance on Grinnell’s subcontract bid. Here, the

district court properly calculated Matherne’s damages to be $113,485 - the cost difference

between Grinnell’s subcontract bid and the substitute contract price. 

Fourth, the district court properly dismissed Grinnell’s third-party claim against the School

Board. The district court found that Grinnell’s assertion of Public Bid Law violations could not,

as a matter of law, render the School Board responsible for Grinnell’s defective bid. We agree. 

Grinnell failed to state any claim for indemnity or contribution, therefore, the district court

properly granted summary judgment for the School Board.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.