#PINNER CONSTRUCTION TRIAL#
Within a week, Pinner Construction filed a petition for a writ of mandate in which it asked the trial court to compel the District to award the contract to it on the ground that the District had abused its discretion in waiving its right to object to the omissions on Bernards Bros.' bid form. The District asked Pinner Construction to submit any claims for its post-bid costs. On February 2, the District notified Pinner Construction that it had determined after a hearing that, in fact, Bernards Bros.' bid was the lowest responsive bid, thereby nullifying the District's earlier decision to award the contract to Pinner Construction. Pinner Construction proceeded to "commence mobilization" and stopped bidding on other projects - but then it was Bernards Bros.' turn to submit a bid protest. On January 8, 2004, the District switched gears and notified Pinner Construction of its intent to award the contract to Pinner because it had submitted the lowest responsive bid, and that the contract would be awarded if Pinner Construction complied with the bond and insurance requirements, which it did on January 16. For its part, however, Pinner Construction found fault with Bernards Bros.' bid and submitted a bid protest, to which the District responded with a statement that it would investigate Pinner Construction's complaint. The District found both bids were responsive, notwithstanding minor deviations and omissions in each of them. was the low bidder at $38,192,000, and that Pinner Construction was the second lowest bidder at $38,684,000 (a difference of $492,000). The bid opening was held on December 4, at which time the District declared that Bernards Bros., Inc.
The instructions to bidders advised that all requested information had to be provided, that the District retained the right to reject any and all bids but could waive any minor irregularities, and that the successful bidder would be required to post payment and performance bonds and to enroll in an "Owner Controlled Insurance Program." Pinner Construction Company, Inc. In October 2003, the Los Angeles Unified School District requested bids for the construction of a new project, the Central Los Angeles New Middle School #4.
The trial court resolved this suit in favor of the school district, finding that the current claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Undeterred, the disappointed bidder filed a civil action for damages against the district, this time seeking damages for the profits it lost from other contracts as a result of its loss of the school construction project contract. The trial court disagreed and rendered judgment for the school district. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.Ī disappointed bidder on a school construction project claimed in a petition for a writ of mandate that the contract should have been awarded to it. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTSĬalifornia Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).
0 kommentar(er)
