Mid-States Gen. & Mech. Contracting Corp. v. Town of Goodland
Decision Date | 06 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 86A03-0312-CV-500.,86A03-0312-CV-500. |
Citation | 811 N.E.2d 425 |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Parties | MID-STATES GENERAL & MECHANICAL CONTRACTING CORPORATION, Appellant-Defendant, v. TOWN OF GOODLAND, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Thomas A. Withrow, Kerry L. Wagner, Henderson Daily Withrow & DeVoe, Indianapolis, IN, John A. Rader, Williamsport, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Judson G. Barce, Hunter J. Reece, Barce & Barce, Fowler, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Mid-States General & Mechanical Contracting Corporation ("Mid-States") appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Town of Goodland ("Town"). Mid-States raises three issues, which we consolidate and restate as:
We affirm.
The relevant facts designated by the parties follow. In late 2001, the Goodland Town Council ("Town Council") began the process of requesting bids for the renovation of an elementary school building into a town hall, community center, and daycare. The Town Council discovered that the first group of bids were over budget and decided to modify the bidding process by requiring bidders to break down their bid into one lump sum for the majority of the work and four smaller optional alternate projects that could be completed if funding was available. On January 16, 2002, the Town Council published an Invitation to Bid, which informed bidders that copies of the plans and specifications for the project were available at the offices of KJG Architecture, Inc. ("KJG"). The Invitation to Bid also informed the bidders that there were two divisions to the contract: (1) Division A, which consisted of the renovation for the daycare center and community center; and (2) Division B, which consisted of the renovation for the town hall. The Invitation to Bid also required proposals to be accompanied by a bid bond of not less than five percent of the total amount of the proposal.
The Bid Notice provided that "[b]ids shall be on a stipulated sum basis; segregated bids will not be accepted." Appellant's Appendix at 174. The bid documents for the project included "Addendum # 1: Document 00410 — Bid Form," which contained the following form that the bidders were required to complete:
Scope A: Town Hall Remodel Work $_________ Scope B: Community Center and Daycare Remodel Work $_________ Roofing Work $_________ Remaining Work $_________
Mid-States submitted a bid with a Stipulated-Sum Bid Price of $822,000.00 along with a bid bond issued by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company ("St. Paul"). On February 4, 2002, the Town Council opened the eight sealed bids that were submitted, including the bid submitted by Mid-States. Mid-States had the lowest bid, and the second lowest bid was submitted by Cooley Construction in the amount of $866,119.00. On March 1, 2002, James Butler, the Town Council President, notified Mid-States that it had been awarded the contract. The Town Council also decided to fund Alternate No. 3, which included renovation of the restrooms to comply with the ADA. After a preconstruction meeting, Mid-States sent a letter to KJG providing it with the total contract price as follows:
Stipulated bid- $822,000.00 Alternate # 3- $ 16,495.00 Allowance # 1- $ 50,000.00 Allowance # 2- $ 7,225.00 Allowance # 3- $ 20,000.00 Allowance # 4- $ 5,000.00 Allowance # 5- $ 9,800.00 Allowance # 6- $ 2,500.00 __________________________________________ Contract Value $933,020.00
Id. at 78. KJG then advised Mid-States that the allowances should have been included in the Stipulated-Sum Bid Price. Mid-States offered to perform the contract for $933,020.00 or perform the contract for its bid price of $822,000 plus the cost of Alternate No. 3 and treat the allowances as change orders. On March 15, 2002, the Town Council awarded the contract to the second lowest bidder, Cooley Construction, for an additional cost of $44,119.00 above the Stipulated-Sum Bid Price submitted by Mid-States.
The Town then filed a complaint against Mid-States and St. Paul, alleging breach of contract and forfeiture of bond. The Town filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted as follows:
On appeal, the standard of review of a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is the same as that used in the trial court: summary judgment is appropriate only where the designated evidence shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Corr v. Am. Family Ins., 767 N.E.2d 535, 537-538 (Ind.2002). The moving party must designate sufficient evidence to eliminate any genuine factual issues, and once the moving party has done so, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to come forth with contrary evidence. Shambaugh & Son, Inc. v. Carlisle, 763 N.E.2d 459, 460-461 (Ind.2002). The court must accept as true those facts alleged by the nonmoving party, construe the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, and resolve all doubts against the moving party. Id.
Where a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions thereon in granting a motion for summary judgment, as the trial court did in this case, the entry of specific findings and conclusions does not alter the nature of our review. Rice v. Strunk, 670 N.E.2d 1280, 1283 (Ind.1996). In the summary judgment context, we are not bound by the trial court's specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon. Id. They merely aid our review by providing us with a statement of reasons for the trial court's actions. Id.
The first issue is whether Mid-States is entitled to rescind its bid and bid bond because of its misinterpretation of the bid...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ball v. Versar, Inc.
...court] will determine the intent of the parties from the four corners of that instrument. Mid-States General & Mechanical Contracting Corp. v. Town of Goodland, 811 N.E.2d 425, 431 (Ind.App.2004) (internal citations omitted). A contract is ambiguous only if it is susceptible to more than on......
-
Scott v. Zimmer, Inc.
...about the existence of a cause of action, cannot support rescission based on mutual mistake. Mid–States Gen. & Mech. Contracting Corp. v. Town of Goodland, 811 N.E.2d 425, 435 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). The court finds that the mistake on which Dr. Scuderi relies is neither mutual, nor one of fact.......
-
Scott v. Zimmer, Inc.
...about the existence of a cause of action, cannot support rescission based on mutual mistake. Mid-States Gen. & Mech. Contracting Corp. v. Town of Goodland, 811 N.E.2d 425, 435 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). The court finds that the mistake on which Dr. Scuderi relies is neither mutual, nor one of fa......
-
Angel v. Powelson
...to read the instrument, or, if he read it, failed to give heed to its plain terms.’ ” Mid–States General & Mechanical Contracting Corp. v. Town of Goodland, 811 N.E.2d 425, 435 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (quoting Gierhart v. Consol. Rail Corp.–Conrail, 656 N.E.2d 285, 287 (Ind.Ct.App.1995)). In Ange......