Court Opinion

ID: 9653976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:00:41.215722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:04.203793
License: Public Domain

CARTER, C.J.,
dissenting.
| J respectfully disagree with the majority in this case. In my opinion, Roof Tech’s bid proposal was clear and error-free in every particular and left no room for mis*625interpretation. The unambiguous dollar amounts were set forth both numerically and in written words as required by the Instructions to the Bidders. I submit that the rejection of Roof Tech’s bid in this case is a hyper-technical interpretation of Instruction 5.1.4 that does nothing to further the overall purpose of fostering public trust in the Public Bid Law. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.