Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 <br />Opinion No.74-4 <br />January 16, 1974 <br />contract by the Council to Coyle in the increased amount <br />would constitute merely a counter-offer. <br />But even assuming Coyle did request a reformation of <br />the bid amount to include the omitted costs, it must be <br />concluded that such a reformation of the bid after the bid <br />opening date would be illegal. <br />As a general rule bids cannot be changed in substance <br />after the .opening date, except for correction of mere irreg- <br />ularities in form. McQuillen on Municipal Corporations, <br />section 29,68, There are few California cases on point, but <br />Greer v. Hitchcock (Ct. of App, 1969) 76 Cal Rptr 376 held <br />that even where the contractor had a right of recision because <br />of an omitted cost item (as in the present case), a purported <br />reformation of the bid to reflect the higher amount, and the <br />contract awarded pursuant to the reformed bid, were void as <br />in violation of the competitive bidding requirement. Klose <br />v. Sequoia High School District (Ct of App, 1953) 258 P2d 515 <br />allowed a reformation of a bid to correct a mistake in listing <br />a subcontractor, but this did not involve a change in the <br />amount of the bid. <br />Although not .set forth in the cases, the reason <br />behind the rule against modification would appear to be the <br />danger to the competitive bidding system. .The low-bid <br />contractor, even if he honestly had a basis for recission <br />because of mistakenly omitted cost items, would know the <br />amount of other submitted bids and would thus be in a position <br />to allege an amount of extra cost based, not upon a good <br />faith assessment of such costs, but upon the difference between <br />his bid and that of the next lowest bidder. Although this <br />rationale would not apply in situations where only one bid <br />had been submitted, the rule against revision of the bid <br />amount is too firmly established to allow any exception. <br />In the present case, the City cannot allow modifica- <br />tion of the bid and cannot proceed unilaterally to award the <br />contract to Coyle at an increased amount. The City must either <br />award the contract to the next lowest responsible bidder or <br />reject all bids. <br />Respectfully submitted <br />.y <br />r C' a,• ,, <br />Richard E. Lay <br />-11- Deputy City Attorney <br />