In a ruling on a lawsuit between Cardinal Construction Ltd. and the city of Brockville, Ontario over a sewer and watermain project, the Ontario High Court of Justice held that the owner was under an implied duty to disclose all information that could potentially influence the supplier’s decision to submit a tender and the price bid in that tender, and that the bidder should not have to search for clues to understand the true state of affairs with respect to a project.
In its decision in Cardinal Construction Ltd. v. Brockville (City), the Ontario High Court of Justice held that the owner was under an implied duty to disclose all information that could potentially influence the supplier’s decision to submit a tender and the price bid in that tender.
The case dealt with a construction contract for the reconstruction of sewers and watermains in the city of Brockville, Ontario. Performance issues arose. The contractor sued, alleging that the city and its advisors had failed to properly disclose relevant information in relation to the project. The court agreed and held the owner was under a duty to disclose material information in its tender call. More particularly, the court held that:
(1) Information should be provided with the average bidder in mind.
(2) Information should be correct and complete.
(3) All material information should be disclosed.
(4) Unreliable information should be disclaimed.
(5) Material facts that arise during the tendering process should also be disclosed.
The plaintiff maintained that “cable” markings on the relevant diagrams failed to properly highlight potential issues regarding the presence of a concrete duct structure and the complications that this could present in performing the work. The city argued that the markings were sufficient to inform a knowledgeable bidder.
The court held that this was insufficient disclosure to warn the individuals preparing the bids of the work conditions:
“Thus the defendants’ witnesses are of the opinion that the “clues” in the contract documents and on site should have led a knowledgeable bidder to inquire further as to the nature of the Bell structure… [M]r. Mangione did not accept the warning signs as calling for investigation in face of the plain labelling of the cable as such. Mr. Solomon in fact, as I find, did not deduce anything from the clues and assumed it to be cable as labelled.”
The court held that bidders should not be required to search for clues or perform detective work in order to uncover the true state of affairs with respect to a tendered project. Rather, to meet its disclosure duties, an owner should prepare its tender call documents with a view to the average bidder’s level of knowledge and sophistication:
“… bidders are not expected to play the detective or read between the lines to identify the nature of the work. On all the evidence the defendants do not satisfy me that an average bidder not having special knowledge of Bell systems would be likely to “read between the lines” and question the clear labelling by the engineers of cable or at most conduit which would make no difference. I am therefore unable to find that Solomon ought to have made further investigation on the basis of the indicia as submitted by the defendants. I add that the evidence as a whole is equivocal and the defendants have not discharged the onus of showing that Cardinal ought to have investigated further by reason of these indicia; I also interpret the contract documents, including the contract documents as whole, contra proferentem.”
As the court stated, since the owner is the party drafting the tender call documents, any ambiguities can be held against it in accordance with the contra proferentem rule.
By inducing bidders to submit tenders on the basis of inaccurate information, the city had breached the duty of care it owed to those bidders and was therefore liable for damages.
As this case illustrates, the institution issuing the tender call can be found liable for failing to meet its disclosure duties.
Paul Emanuelli’s procurement law practice focuses on all aspects of the tendering cycle including bid dispute resolution. This article is extracted from his Government Procurement textbook published by LexisNexis Butterworths. Paul can be reached at paul.emanuelli@procurementoffice.ca.
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed