Opinion ID: 1279422
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: correction of bid

Text: District's Procurement Code, Article 2, Section 2-102 controls Competitive Sealed Bidding. In particular, section 2-102(10), Correction or Withdrawal of Bids: Cancellation of Awards states: Corrections or withdrawal of inadvertently erroneous bids before or after award, or cancellation of awards or contracts based on such bid mistakes may be permitted where appropriate. After bid openings, no change in bid prices or other provisions of bids prejudicial to the interest of the school district or fair competition will be permitted. A bidder must submit a written request to either correct or withdraw a bid to the school district. Each written request must document the fact that the bidder's mistake is clearly an error that will cause him substantial loss. In order to maintain the integrity of the competitive sealed bidding process, a bidder will not be permitted to correct a bid mistake after bid opening that would cause such bidder to have the low bid, unless the mistake, in the judgment of the school district, is clearly evident from examining the bid document: for example, extension of unit prices or errors in addition. All decisions to permit the correction of (sic) withdrawal of bids, or to cancel awards or contracts based on bids mistakes, will be supported by a written determination. (emphasis supplied). [2] Martin contends that unless an error is clearly evident by examining the bid document itself, no correction is permissible. We disagree. It is patent from the language of § 2-102(10) that only a correction which causes the bidder to have the low bid requires the mistake be clearly evident from examining the bid document. On the other hand, where the bid correction does not cause the bidder to have the low bid, nothing in § 2-102 requires District to confine its review to the bid document itself. Here, the item Sharp failed to include in its bid the bid of its roofing subcontractor, Watts. There was evidence that three different roofing contractors had utilized the identical roof bid from Watts in bidding on District's project. Moreover, Sharp had listed Watts as a sub-contractor in its bid. This evidence was in existence prior to the time the bids were opened. From this evidence, we find it was within District's discretion to determine that correction of Sharp's inadvertently erroneous bid was proper, and that the correction would not be prejudicial to the interests of the school district or fair competition. Martin asserts the integrity of the bidding process and the need for fair competition require clear rules for post opening bid corrections. While we are not unmindful of the need to preserve the integrity of the bidding process, we find no violation of the rules in this case. Martin has not shown that the procedures followed by District render the upward correction unfair or unjust, nor has he demonstrated in what manner the correction was prejudicial to the District or to fair competition. As noted by District's order in this case, It is true that Sharp's omission of the price for the build-up roof was not apparent from the bid form itself. However, the mistake is clear, and the amount Sharp intended to bid for the roof is evident, by examining the roofing subcontractor's sub-bid, which was submitted to several of the bidders, including Sharp and Martin. We agree with the District that allowing the correction in this case neither jeopardized the integrity of the sealed bidding process, nor was it prejudicial to the interests of the District or fair competition. To the contrary, to accept Martin's argument that District must reject Sharp's bid and accept its bid, some $461,500.00 higher than Sharp's corrected bid, would clearly be prejudicial to the District requiring it to expend substantially more money. Martin cites case law from other jurisdictions as supporting its claim that post-opening bid amendments are impermissible unless an error is readily apparent on the face of the bid. [3] We find cases from other jurisdictions, addressing other state procurement codes, are simply inapplicable to District's procurement code.