NH Construction Law
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Links

#124:  The Clarity of Pre-Bid Clarifications

4/3/2023

0 Comments

 
As I write this on the centennial of the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision in Osgood Construction Co. v. Claremont, 81 N.H. 29 (1923), it remains one of the most interesting contract decisions I have yet encountered.  (Coincidentally the losing defendant, Town of Claremont, was represented by a prior iteration of my law firm – which of course has nothing to do with my musings today!)  Here’s what happened:
 
The case involved a water system improvement project that included constructing a concrete dam.  The concrete specifications provided that “Sand, broken stone or gravel will be at all times subject to the approval or rejection of the engineer.”  When the plaintiffs were preparing their bid, they asked the Town’s engineer “if they could base their bid upon the use of native stone, and he told them that they could.  Accordingly they did so, reducing their bid $1.25 a yard upon the understanding that they could use local or native stone in the concrete.”  Id. at 32.  When the engineer later tested it, he found that “the local stone was wholly unsuitable for use in the concrete,” id. at 31, and required the plaintiffs to import different stone from elsewhere.
 
The plaintiffs sued to recover the additional expense, and lost at trial based on the trial judge’s conclusion that the engineer’s statement “falls considerably short of Mr. Osgood’s claim that [the engineer] told them unconditionally that the local stone might be used, and is rather more consistent with the statement . . . that local stone might be used if it proved to be suitable.”  Id. at 32.  But the Supreme Court reversed the decision, reasoning:
 
“If the defendants accepted the plaintiffs’ bid upon the basis of the lower price for local stone, they obtained the advantage of the use of such stone if it proved suitable. Making the contract in this way to obtain this advantage in price, they took the risk of the suitability of the local stone. Having taken the risk, they must bear the loss or extra expense rendered necessary by the discovery that the local stone could not be used.”  Id. at 32.
 
Shifting the risk of nonconforming materials from contractor to owner normally requires proof that the contractor was misled about what materials could be used.  Peter Salvucci & Sons, Inc. v. State, 110 N.H. 136, 147 (1970) (awarding the cost of importing distant gravel to a contractor who “is misled by incorrect plans and specifications issued by the public authorities as the basis for bids and who, as a result, submits a bid which is lower than he would have otherwise made”). Osgood reached the same result by construing the engineer’s statement that local stone could be used for bidding purposes as a firm promise – or as the Court put it, “the plaintiffs had a right to understand that, if their bid was accepted, they could use the local stone.”  Id. at 33.
 
If the takeaway from Osgood were simply that owner approval of construction materials may be inferred from careless answers to pre-bid questions, it would hardly be surprising.  What is more interesting to me is the Court’s willingness to overturn a factual finding of the trial court as to what the parties really meant.  “When there is a question of fact concerning what was intended by certain terms within a contract, the dispute is to be resolved by the trier of fact, whose findings will be upheld if supported by the evidence.”  R. Zoppo Co. v. City of Dover, 124 N.H. 666, 671 (1984).   The trial judge found that engineer’s unspoken qualification “yes, if it meets spec” should reasonably be implied under the circumstances.  But the Supreme Court saw no ambiguity, and therefore no issue of fact to be resolved; an unqualified green light was, in its view, “the only reasonable interpretation that can be placed upon the language used,” id. at 33.
 
The lesson of Osgood a century later remains important: pre-bid statements on what bidders may furnish in compliance with contract requirements need to be precise, or they risk giving unintended leeway to the successful bidder
.
0 Comments

    Author

    Frank Spinella

    Archives

    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.