Cardell, Inc. v. Madison Tp.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1969 |
| Parties | CARDELL, INC., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey and J. Richard Hudanich, Plaintiffs, v. The TOWNSHIP OF MADISON, a Municipal Corporation in the County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, and Manzo Contracting Co., a Corporation of the State ofNew Jersey, Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Stewart M. Hutt, Wood Ridge, for plaintiffs (Hutt & Berkow, Wood Ridge, attorneys).
Marc J. Gordon, Newark, for defendant Township of Madison.
Mark L. Stanton, Piscataway, for defendant Manzo Contracting Co. (Stanton & Recht, Piscataway, attorneys).
SEIDMAN, J.C.C. (temporarily assigned).
In these proceedings in lieu of prerogative writ, plaintiffs Cardell, Inc., and J. Richard Hudanich seek to compel the defendant Township of Madison to award to the corporate plaintiff as low bidder a contract for resurfacing of various streets. Manzo Contracting Co., the co-defendant, claims that it had been awarded the contract as the lowest bidder and that the municipality could not thereafter validly rescind the award and reject all bids. The inclusion of Hudanich, a resident and taxpayer of the municipality, as a plaintiff, is presumably technical in nature, designed to enable the raising of issues not available to a bidder. See Camden Plaza Parking v. City of Camden, 16 N.J. 150, 158, 107 A.2d 1 (1954).
Since the basic facts are not in substantial dispute, the parties agreed at pretrial conference that the matter should be considered at final hearing as though on motions and cross-motions for summary judgment.
On or about October 1, 1968, the Township of Madison advertised for the receipt of bids for the resurfacing of various municipal streets. Cardell and Manzo, duly prequalified, submitted bids on the forms and in the manner prescribed by the specifications. The bids were opened at a council meeting held October 10, 1968. Cardell's proposal contained a grand total bid of $975,850.00; Manzo's bid was $898,810.00. Upon a tabulation by the municipal engineer, mathematical errors were discovered in Cardell's bid, which, the plaintiffs contend, reduced its bid to a corrected total of $873,250.00, thus making Cardell the lowest responsible bidder. The next night, at a special meeting of the Township Council, a resolution was adopted declaring Manzo the lowest bidder and awarding it the contract. On October 18, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in lieu of prerogative writ. At a subsequent special meeting held October 31, another resolution was adopted rescinding the one of October 11, rejecting all the bids, and directing the readvertising for new bids.
Cardell argues that the determination of the corrected bid price, having been done in accordance with the specifications, made it the lowest bidder; consequently, it should have been awarded the contract. The Township claims that the errors in the proposal invalidated Cardell's bid. With respect to Manzo, whose contention is simply that the award to it should be reinstated, the Township asserts that it reserved in the specifications the right to reject any and all proposals.
The form of proposal to be submitted by prospective bidders called for the submission of unit prices for seven items, with a stated total price bid for all items. Cardell's proposal was as follows:
"Item 1 Excavate and Remove Pavement and or
unclassified Material 10,000 Cubic yards
@$10.00 per C.Y
Ten Dollars and no cents $ 10000.00
---------------------------------------- -----------
(Write Unit Price)
Item 2 Furnish and Place and Compact Quarry
Stone Type 5, Class A 10,000 Cubic Yards
@$10.00 per C.Y
Ten Dollars and no cents $100000.00
---------------------------------------- -----------
(Write Unit Price)
Item 3 Water Valve Boxes Raised and Maintained
to Grade
350 Each @$25.00 per each
Twenty five Dollars and no cents $ 8750.00
---------------------------------------- -----------
(Write Unit Price)
Item 4 Manholes Reset to Grade
560 Each @$25.00 per each
Twenty five Dollars and no cents $ 1400.00
---------------------------------------- -----------
(Write Unit Price
Item 5 Furnish and Apply Asphalt Emulsion
(RS-1) as directed by the Engineer
38,000 Gallons @$0.25 per Gal
Twenty five Cents $ 9500.00
---------------------------------------- -----------
(Write Unit Price)
Item 6 Furnish and Place Bituminous Concrete
Leveling Course
15,000 Tons @$11.00 per ton
Eleven Dollars and no cents $165000.00
---------------------------------------- -----------
(Write Unit Price)
Item 7 Furnish and Place Bituminous Concrete
Surface Course F.A.B.C-1
52,600 Tons @$11.00 per ton
Eleven Dollars and no cents $578600.00
---------------------------------------- -----------
(Write Unit Price)
The Total Price Bid For All Items under
this Contract is $975850.00"
-----------
The unit prices, both in figures and words, the extended totals, and the grand total were all hand-written.
The mathematical errors contained in the proposal were these:
1. The extensions, as set forth, actually totalled $873,250.00, rather than $975,850.00.
2. In Item 1, the quoted unit price of $10.00 for 10,000 cubic yards should have produced an extended total of $100,000.00, whereas the actual extension was $10,000.00.
3. In Item 4, the resetting of 560 manhole covers to grade at $25.00 each should have totalled $14,000.00, not $1,400.00.
It is observed that, had the extensions conformed to the quantities multiplied by the unit prices, the total would have been as indicated; namely, $975,850.00.
In support of the contention that Cardell was the low bidder, plaintiffs refer to the computations made by the municipal engineer pursuant to paragraph 1. 0.14 of the specifications, captioned 'Comparison of Bids', which reads as follows:
On the comparison sheet prepared by the municipal engineer, to reconcile the total of the extended amounts, he calculated the unit price in Item 1 to be $1.00, and the one in Item 4 to be $2.50. As noted above, the plaintiffs contend that the corrected figures made Cardell the lowest bidder, entitling it to the contract. The contention is unsound.
One who claims to be the lowest bidder may seek a judicial review of the award of a municipal contract, but 'must stand or fall on its own entitlement to the contract'. William A. Carey & Co. v. Borough of Fair Lawn, 37 N.J.Super. 159, 168, 117 A.2d 140 (App.Div.1955); Turco Paving Con., Inc. v. City Council of Orange, 89 N.J.Super. 93, 100, 213 A.2d 865 (App.Div.1965).
Cardell argues that the specifications anticipated the possibility of errors in the preparation of a bid; and, since provision was made for the procedure to be followed in such event, the municipal engineer's computations control, thereby establishing Cardell as low bidder. This reasoning, in my view, is a misconception of the scope of the applicable specification.
The evident purpose of the specification was to enable the engineer, for comparison purposes, to check the bid computations, and, if errors were discovered, to utilize the given formula for reconciling the computations. Thus, in the instant case, upon adding the item totals, the engineer noted the grand total to be $873,250.00, and he placed that figure on his comparison sheet. Applying the formula further, he changed the unit price for Item 1 from $10.00 to $1.00, and the unit price for Item 4 from $25.00 to $2.50. Then, also in accordance with the specification, he forwarded the proposals to the Township Council for consideration.
Cardell claims that the prescribed procedure removed any doubt or ambiguity as to the amount of the bid or the unit prices. This is not so. The engineer's calculation merely sought to reconcile the computations made by the bidder. The doubts or ambiguities remained. For example, in Item 1 Cardell inserted a unit price of $10.00 in figures and then wrote the amount in words. Since the quantity was 10,000 cubic yards, the total should have been $100,000.00; instead, it was $10,000.00. Where was the error? Was it in the extended figure, or in the unit price? Although the specification provided a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ace-Manzo, Inc. v. Township of Neptune
...all bids" such action was wrongful. Armitage, supra. It is not less so today. Scatuorchio, supra, 14 N.J. at 91 ; Cardell [v. Madison Tp.] supra, 115 N.J.Super., at 601-602 ; Poling, supra, 86 N.J.Super. at 488 Id. 115 N.J.Super. at 450, 280 A.2d 203. In expressing when a municipality may i......
-
M. A. Stephen Const. Co., Inc. v. Borough of Rumson
... ... Monmouth, State of New Jersey, ... Defendant-Respondent, Cross-Appellant ... CARDELL, INC., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, ... Plaintiff-Respondent, ... The TOWNSHIP OF MADISON, a municipal corporation in the ... County of ... ...
-
Cardell, Inc. v. Woodbridge Tp.
...See, E.g., Scatourchio v. Jersey City Incinerator Authority, 14 N.J. 72, 91, 100 A.2d 869 (1953); Cardell, Inc. v. Madison Tp., 105 N.J.Super. 594, 601, 253 A.2d 820 (Law Div. 1969), aff'd 105 N.J.Super. 604, 253 A.2d 826 (App.Div. 1969), rev'd dissenting o.b. 54 N.J. 151, 253 A.2d 814 (196......
-
Cataldo Const. Co. v. Essex County
...under appropriate circumstances, grant relief by way of rescission for a unilateral mistake of fact. Cardell, Inc. v. Madison Tp., 105 N.J.Super. 594, 600, 253 A.2d 820, 826 (Law Div.1969), rev'd on other grounds, 54 N.J. 151, 253 A.2d 814 (1969); Panco v. Rogers, 19 N.J.Super. 12, 17, 87 A......