Court Opinion

ID: 9514981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:52:58.403595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:23.504992
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in result).
[¶ 38.] I concur in result because no prejudice was shown even though the evidence shows that violations of the bidding laws occurred.
[¶ 39.] The contract specifications required all inquiries to be directed to Larson Engineering. Despite this, Ramstad Construction contacted the City Administrator who obtained for them the right to 1) leave excess dirt on the site and 2) dispose of the trees by burning them on the site. This was favoritism, and all other bidders should have been advised immediately by facsimile or phone.
[¶ 40.] In addition, for Beresford to provide Ramstad an opportunity to accept a bid of zero for item 3 on the bid schedule constitutes favoritism even though it did not result in any damage or prejudice in this situation. Better performance by the bid-letter and the successful bidder, resulting in equal treatment for all bidders, should be required in all future bid lettings.