W & W Contractors, Inc. v. Tunica County Airport Comm'n
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01801-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-24-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Site preparation contract - Modification of bid submission - Authority of Commission - Certificates of responsibility Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Lee, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-24-2003 Appealed from: Tunica County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: DECISION OF TUNICA COUNTY AIRPORT COMMISSION AFFIRMED Case Number: 2000-0316 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | W & W Contractors, Inc. |
H. SCOT SPRAGINS
DION JEFFERY SHANLEY |
||
| Appellee: | Tunica County Airport Commission | ANDREW T. DULANEY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Site preparation contract - Modification of bid submission - Authority of Commission - Certificates of responsibility |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Tunica County Airport Commission advertised for sealed bids in connection with a site preparation contract. W & W Contractors, Inc. and Cobb Land Development, along with eight other contractors, submitted bids for the project. W & W submitted a bid that totaled $4,319,279.20. Cobb did not state a figure for the total base bid. Due to irregularities in Cobb’s bid, the Commission sought an opinion from the Attorney General. After the Attorney General’s opinion was issued, the Commission accepted Cobb’s bid and awarded it the contract. W & W appealed to circuit court which affirmed the decision of the Commission. W & W appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Modification of bid submission W & W argues that the Commission erred in allowing Cobb to modify its bid post submission. Cobb did not submit a total base bid as did the other bidders. W & W argues that using Cobb’s amounts as stated in words, Cobb’s total bid would have been $7,223,827 and not the lowest bid. Public bid laws do not allow a governing party to accept a bid price increase after sealed bids are opened except where the error and the intended correct bid are evidenced on the face of the bid document. Here, the Commission was not allowing Cobb to modify its unit pricing but rather was interpreting the correct price for the fencing. Also, the interpretation of numbers over words resulted in a decrease in bid amount, not an increase. The actions of the Commission were appropriate because the error and the correct bid amount were evidenced on the face of the bid document. With regard to DBE requirements, the decision of the Commission to allow Cobb to supplement its bid and provide additional information on DBE contractors was appropriate. The Commission found that this action would not adversely effect the other bidders. Issue 2: Authority of Commission W & W argues that the Commission’s award to Cobb was an action beyond its power because the Commission did not have the legal authority to allow an amendment after sealed bids were submitted. The Commission’s action of interpreting the unit price for the fence as $8.75 per foot was not an amendment to the bid but a waiver by the Commission of discrepancies in Cobb’s bid. This action was proper as the irregularity was evinced from the bid document and the waiver did not give Cobb a competitive advantage over the other bidders. With regard to the DBEs, the Commission was not acting outside its powers by ensuring that Cobb was a responsible bidder and could comply with the 9.15 % DBE requirement. Issue 3: Certificates of responsibility W & W argues that Cobb did not have certificates of responsibility for the major classifications required for the performance of the contract. Because Cobb’s envelope is not contained in the appellate record, the adequacy of the certificates cannot be determined. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
