Opinion ID: 1810482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: bidder shall attach a copy of its insurance certificate or statement to this page, sign this page, date it and include this page with the bid

Text: Addendum Number 10 to the bidding documents provides in part: It is called to the bidders' attention that in Article 11 of the General Conditions, the insurance certificate must name [the Authority] and ... New Orleans Public Facilities Management, Inc. and others as additional insureds. Bidder's certificate of insurance shall include the named insureds and must indicate the waiver of subrogation required by Article 11 of the General Conditions. The insurance company selected by bidder must have an A.M. Best Insurance rating of A-VI. In support of its contention that builders' risk insurance was not required to be submitted with the bid, the Authority relies first on an affidavit of Ian Thompson, a principal of Sizeler Architects. Mr. Thompson attested that he prepared the Bid Specifications, Invitation to Bid, Instructions to Bidders, Bid Form and all other documents relative to the bids sought by the Authority on the Phase IV Project. Mr. Thompson also stated that in his professional judgment, Yates/Landis complied fully and completely and in all substantive respects with the bid documents. He further affirmed that Yates/Landis complied fully and completely and in all substantive respects with all of the insurance requirements of the Bid Documents. Additionally, Billy Sizeler of Sizeler Architects testified before the Construction Committee of the Authority that it is pretty much an industry standard, that a contractor is not required to present a builders risk insurance [certificate] at the time of the bid.... It's a standard industry practice that within ten days after the bids are received that the contractor has that time to present a builders risk insurance policy to the owner. According to Mr. Sizeler, only a certificate of general liability insurance is required to be submitted with the bid. He stated that Article 11.3 does not state that a certificate of insurance shall be presented to the owner with the bid. Moreover, a Bid Tabulation Form prepared by Sizeler in connection with its review of the bids, provides in part: Broadmoor, LLC COMMENTS: All required Insurance Certificates submitted with bid along with evidence of insurability for Builder's Risk. McDonnel/PCL, a Joint Venture COMMENTS: Evidence of insurability for all insurance submitted with bid. Yates/Landis, a Joint Venture COMMENTS: All required Insurance Certificates submitted with bid. Builder's Risk not included, however, Builder's Risk is not required to be submitted with bid. As stated above, the conditions mandating the procurement of builders' risk insurance were included in the bid documents prepared by Sizeler. The bid form specifically stated that the bidder was required to attach the insurance certificate or statement of insurability to the form. The form further provided that if a statement of insurability was provided, then a statement from the insurer, attesting that the required certificate of insurance would be issued within eight days, was required to be attached as well. Furthermore, Article 14 of the bid instructions required a certificate of insurance or statement of insurability to be submitted along with the contractors' bids. Article 11.3 of the supplementary conditions required the contractors to purchase and maintain builders' risk insurance. When the two provisions of the bid requirements are read in para materia, the plain language of the requirements reveals that documentation in the form of a certificate of insurance or a statement of insurability is required to show that the requirements of Article 11 will be met. Pursuant to the terms of Article 14, as well as the instructions included on the bid form, the insurance documentation is required to be submitted along with the bid. Consequently, all bidders were required to either obtain a certificate of builders' risk insurance, or obtain a statement of insurability regarding the builders' risk coverage and submit it along with the bid documents. Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 38:2212(A)(1)(b), the provisions required on the bid form shall not be waived by any public entity. Moreover, even if the provisions of Article 14 and Article 11 are somehow construed to be ambiguous, Article 4, Section 4.5 of the bid instructions provides, Should there be any discrepancy between any of the information contained in these Documents, the more stringent requirement(s) shall govern. In this case, the more stringent requirement would be the requirement that the certificate of insurance or the statement of insurability be delivered with the bid. Therefore, we find that the failure of Yates/Landis to comply with the mandate constitutes a substantive deviation from the bid requirements which cannot be waived, neither expressly nor implicitly, by the Authority or its architect. Resolution Authority Exhibit Number 9 of the Bid Form provides: BIDDER SHALL ATTACH JOINT VENTURE AFFIDAVITS TO THIS PAGE SIGN, IT DATE IT AND SUBMIT IT AS PART OF BID IF THIS FORM IS NOT APPLICABLE, BIDDER MUST SIGN AND DATE THIS PAGE, MARK IT N/A, AND SUBMIT THIS PAGE WITH BID. Also, the record contains a document entitled, Addendum No. 10September 23, 2003. The document, generated by Sizeler and addressed to all holders of the bid documents, states in part: This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents and modifies the original Bidding Documents dated August 8, 2003. The contents of this Addendum shall be included in the Contract Documents when the Agreement is executed. Changes made by this Addendum take precedence over the Documents of earlier date. The addendum contains, inter alia, responses to various pre-bid questions which had been submitted to Sizeler. Included in the addendum was the following question and answer: How is the bid to be executed by a joint venture? What documentation will be required by the owner to verify authority of the person executing the document on behalf of the joint venture? Owner answer: If the Joint Venture is in the form of an entity separate from either of the venture partners, a resolution from that entity is required. If the joint venture is not a separate entity, the bidder must provide a resolution from all joint ventures authorizing the signature of on the bid forms. In Stafford Construction Co. v. Terrebonne Parish School Board, 560 So.2d 558 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990), the School Board advertised for bids to perform renovations and additions to two schools located in the parish. The contract was awarded to the lowest bidder. Stafford Construction Company (Stafford), the second lowest bidder, sought to enjoin the School Board and to nullify the bid submitted by the lowest bidder, alleging that the lowest bidder's bid package did not include a corporate resolution authorizing the signing of the proposal or bid. The court, citing LSA-R.S. 38:2212 and LSA-R.S. 38:2220, [9] concluded that the failure of the successful bidder to attach a bid form corporate resolution authorizing signing of the proposal or the bid was an error of substance, rather than of form, and rendered the bid null and void. Yates/Landis does not dispute that it is a separate entity from W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company (Yates Construction) and Landis Construction Company, L.L.C. (Landis Construction). Yet, the record does not contain a resolution from the Yates/Landis joint venture, as required by the bidding documents. Rather, the record reveals that Yates/Landis' bid contained two separate corporate resolutions, one from Yates Construction and one from Landis Construction. Neither of the resolutions submitted mentioned the joint venture, and there was no documentation submitted to verify who was authorized to act on behalf of the joint venture. [10] Therefore, we find that the court of appeal correctly concluded that the failure to submit the resolution along with the bid constituted a failure to comply with the bid requirements. Attendance at Pre-Bid Conferences LSA-R.S. 38:2212(A)(1)(b) provides that the provisions and requirements stated in the advertisement for bids may not be waived. Moreover, courts have found that the failure to attend a mandatory pre-bid meeting resulted in the disqualification as a bidder. Schaff Bros. Contrs. v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 94-177 (La.App. 5 Cir.7/26/94), 641 So.2d 642; Gibbs Construction Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Sup'vrs of L.S.U., 447 So.2d 90 (La.App. 4 Cir.1984.). In Schaff, the Jefferson Parish School Board advertised for bids for replacing the air conditioning chiller units at one of its schools. The advertisement for bids stated, A Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting will be held.... Further, the bid instructions stated that attendance at the meeting was mandatory. No representative of Schaff Bros. Contractors, Inc. (Schaff) was in attendance at the meeting. Schaff submitted a bid which was nearly $6,000 lower than the next lowest bid. The School Board's architect recommended rejecting Schaff's bid for failure to attend the pre-bid meeting. Following a hearing to contest the architect's recommendation, the Board determined that it would not waive the requirement of attendance at the pre-bid meeting, and therefore, would not consider the bid submitted by Schaff. Schaff then sought to enjoin the School Board from awarding the contract to the next lowest bidder and for damages. The court of appeal upheld the School Board's actions, stating: There is no question here that the advertisement, as well as the bid package itself, contained the requirement that bidders attend the pre-bid meeting. Schaff did not attend the meeting and therefore did not bid according to the specifications as advertised. In this circumstance, we find that its bid was properly not considered. Schaff Bros. Contrs., 641 So.2d at 644. In this case, the Advertisement for Bids provided in relevant part: Two Pre-Bid Conferences will be held at the offices of Sizeler Architects ... on August 22, 2003, at 10:00 AM and on September 5, 2003, at 10:00 AM. Attendance is mandatory .... Additionally, the transcript/minutes of the pre-bid conference held on August 22, 2203 reflects that a representative of the Authority opened the meeting by stating, This is the first one of two. Both are mandatory attendance. Broadmoor contends that Yates/Landis was not represented at the pre-bid conferences, as the joint venture was not in existence at the time of the conferences. Conversely, Yates/Landis asserts that a representative of the joint venture attended both conferences, as the Yates partner attended both pre-bid conferences, and the Landis partner attended one of the two. The court of appeal concluded: It is clear that at the time of the pre-bid meetings and the purchase of the bidding materials, the Yates/Landis joint venture did not exist. Thus, there could not be a representative from the joint venture at the pre-bid meetings. The question then becomes is Yates/Landis, as a joint venture, disqualified as a responsive bidder because it did not attend the meetings and purchase the bidding documents as a joint venture? The law on joint venture provides that partners in a joint venture may act on behalf of the joint venture. La. C.C. article 2814; Latiolais v. BFI of Louisiana, Inc., 567 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 3 Cir.1990); Smith v. Lonzo , XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/5/03), 838 So.2d 918. However, the joint venture did not exist at the time of the meetings. Thus, the actions of Yates cannot be construed as acting on behalf of the joint venture. As Yates/Landis, a Joint Venture, did not attend the mandatory pre-bid meetings, it could not be a qualified responsive bidder. Since the essential elements of a joint venture and a partnership are the same, joint ventures are generally governed by partnership law. Latiolais v. BFI of Louisiana, Inc., 567 So.2d 1159 (La.App. 3 Cir.1990). LSA-C.C. art. 2801 defines partnership as follows: [A] juridical person, distinct from its partners, created by a contract between two or more persons to combine their efforts or resources in determined proportions and to collaborate at mutual risk for their common profit or commercial benefit. Joint ventures arise only where the parties intended the relationship to exist, and they are ultimately predicated upon contract either express or implied. Smith v. Lonzo, 02-1053 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/5/03), 838 So.2d 918; Pillsbury Mills, Inc. v. Chehardy, 231 La. 111, 124, 90 So.2d 797, 801 (1956), citing Daspit v. Sinclair Refining Co., 199 La. 441, 6 So.2d 341 (1942). The Joint Venture Agreement between Yates and Landis was formerly executed on September 12, 2003, a week after the second mandatory pre-bid conference was held. However, Yates/Landis contends that the joint venture was formed prior to the date of the written agreement. In fact, the attendance sheet from the conference held on September 5, 2003 reveals that Jim Lewis signed in as a representative of Yates/Landis. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that no one signed in as a representative of the Yates/Landis Joint Venture pre-bid conference held on August 22, 2003. The attendance sheet from that conference reflects that Mr. Daniels signed in as a representative of Yates Construction, and no one from Landis Construction was in attendance. While we acknowledge that no express contract is required to form a joint venture, there is nothing in the record to support the contention that Mr. Daniels attended the first pre-bid conference as a representative of Yates/Landis. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeal's conclusion that the joint venture failed to comply with the bid requirement that all bidders were required to attend two mandatory pre-bid conferences.