Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/353/353mass503.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 19:55:53+00:00

Document:
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on August 23, 1966.
The suit was reported by Forte, J., without decision.
Richard L. Seegel for the plaintiff.
George W. Gold for Northgate Construction Corp.
Ralph G. Silverstein, Assistant City Solicitor, for the City of Brockton.
KIRK, J. This bill for declaratory relief under G. L. c. 231A, Section 1, was brought in the Superior Court on a case stated and reported to this court without decision. G. L. c. 214, Section 31. We summarize relevant parts of the case stated which incorporates by reference numerous exhibits.
In July, 1966, the city advertised for bids for the "Site Preparation Contract" for the Brockton High School. The work contemplated by the contract covered site grading, and the construction of water, sewer and drainage facilities. The invitation reserved to the city the right to waive any informality in or to reject any or all bids and to accept the bid deemed to be in the best interests of the city. A booklet entitled, "Contract and Specifications for Brockton High School Site Preparation Contract," was made available to all prospective bidders by the city. Under the heading "Information for Bidders" in a subsection entitled "Notice of Special Conditions" appears the following statement; "The Contractor shall prepare and submit a network analysis of a construction progress schedule with his proposal. This method of analysis is generally referred to as the Critical Path Method (CPM)."
Both Gil-Bern and Northgate bid on the project. Northgate's total price bid of $587,345 was the lowest bid. Gil-Bern's total price bid of $619,405 was next lowest. Gil-Bern submitted a CPM with its bid; Northgate did not. The sealed bids were opened on August 10, 1966. On August 12, Northgate submitted to the city's consulting engineers a CPM which was not wholly satisfactory. On August 15, it submitted a modified CPM which was accepted by the engineers who recommended to the mayor that the contract be awarded to Northgate. Thereafter, on August 18, the mayor of Brockton in good faith waived the requirement that Northgate file its CPM with its bid and, deeming it in the best interests of the city, awarded the contract to Northgate. Although the mayor would not have awarded the contract to Northgate if Northgate had not filed the CPM before the contract was made, he attached no particular importance to the filing of the CPM with the bid.
He considered the CPM "as but one of the methods by which the engineers and architects could evaluate or determine the capability of a bidder; also, to display how a bidder proposed to handle the project, and how he intended to schedule his work so that he would be finished within the 180 working days as provided for in the Contract."
The issues are whether the contract was subject to G. L. c. 149, Sections 44A-44L, and whether the contract should have been awarded to Gil-Bern as the "lowest responsible and eligible general bidder." G. L. c. 149, Section 44A.
of substance there must be strict compliance with the requirements of c. 149. Gifford v. Commissioner of Pub. Health, 328 Mass. 608 , 617. East Side Constr. Co. v. Adams, 329 Mass. 347 , 350-351. Grande & Son, Inc. v. School Housing Comm. of No. Reading, 334 Mass. 252 , 258. Chick's Constr. Co. Inc. v. Wachusett Regional High Sch. Dist. Sch. Comm. 343 Mass. 38 , 41. On the other hand, minor or formal deviations from requirements do not compel rejection of the bid, Chick's Constr. Co. Inc. v. Wachusett Regional High Sch. Dist. Sch. Comm. 343 Mass. 38 , 41, and cases cited, although the bid may be rejected if the awarding authority so chooses. Builders Realty Corp. of Mass. v. Newton, 348 Mass. 64 , 67.
reasons, we conclude that Northgate's failure to supply a CPM with its bid was a minor deviation which the awarding authority could lawfully waive.
3. A final decree will be entered declaring that the Brockton High School Site Preparation Contract was properly awarded to Northgate Construction Corporation and that Gil-Bern Construction Corp. has no interest in that contract.
[Note 1] Northgate Construction Corporation (Northgate).
[Note 2] We note that the specifications for the contract issued by the city declared that the contract was subject to G. L. c. 149. While this declaration may not be conclusive in law it strongly indicates that the city intended, and Northgate accepted, the contract as one for appurtenances to a public building.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.