M. A. Lombard & Son Co. v. Public Bldg. Commission of Chicago, 79-1659

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtWILSON; SULLIVAN, P. J., and LORENZ; WILSON; SULLIVAN, P. J., and LORENZ
Citation57 Ill.Dec. 209,101 Ill.App.3d 514,428 N.E.2d 889
Parties, 57 Ill.Dec. 209 M. A. LOMBARD & SON COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant- Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 79-1659,79-1659
Decision Date21 August 1981

Page 889

428 N.E.2d 889
101 Ill.App.3d 514, 57 Ill.Dec. 209
M. A. LOMBARD & SON COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation,
Corporation, Defendant- Appellee.
No. 79-1659.
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.
Aug. 21, 1981.
Supplemental Opinion on Denial of Rehearing Nov. 30, 1981.

[101 Ill.App.3d 515] James G. O'Donohue, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.

William R. Quinlan, Chicago (Earl L. Neal, Anne L. Fredd, Chicago, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Page 890

[57 Ill.Dec. 210] WILSON, Justice:

M. A. Lombard & Son Company (Lombard) appeals from a judgment of the trial court in favor of the Public Building Commission of Chicago (Commission). Lombard presents two issues for review: (1) that [101 Ill.App.3d 516] it is fraudulent for a public body to advertise for bids knowing that the construction plans are incomplete and later make material departures in the plans and specifications; and (2) the "no damage for delay" clause does not absolve a public body under all conditions and circumstances. The pertinent facts follow.

Lombard submitted the lowest bid of $8,794,000 in accordance with certain plans and specifications, and was awarded the general works contract from the Commission on December 14, 1971, for construction of the Archer-Pulaski High School. The contract encompassed the construction of two buildings: building "A" to be completed in 360 days or by December 28, 1972, and building "B" to be completed in 420 days or by March 7, 1973.

Prior to the general contract, there were preliminary contracts awarded to prepare the site for construction. George Lombard, president of Lombard, testified that Lombard was aware of the prior contracts as well as the contractual provisions concerning changes in the work and delays.

At a meeting on December 21, 1971, Fred Coleman, the project manager for the joint venture, informed George that Lombard was going to get a notice to proceed on December 28, 1971. George informed him that the job site was not ready and asked that the day of the notice to proceed be extended to some future date. However, the notice to proceed was given on December 28, 1971.

Lombard exhibits indicated that there were numerous charges made throughout the contract period in the drawings and specifications. Lombard contends that Bulletin No. 2, dated March 24, 1972, materially changed the bid drawings with the issuance of construction drawings and additional compensation in the amount of $221,871.40 was authorized. Bulletin No. 8, issued on May 25, 1972, changed the revisions set forth in Bulletin No. 2 and contained 17 pages of revisions. This bulletin authorized extra compensation in the amount of $126,135. Further, on February 8, 1972, the Commission had accepted Lombard's bid of $634,624 for Alternate No. 2, the integrated ceiling in Building "A", in accordance with the bid drawings. Subsequent to this acceptance, numerous changes were made and Lombard was not able to proceed with this work until December 19, 1972. Bulletin No. 40, issued January 31, 1973, required additional work to the ceiling at an added cost of more than $45,000 because of lack of information at the time of installation of the electrical and mechanical work. A stop work order on all ceilings was issued on January 29, 1973, by the City Ventilation Department and was not lifted until April 5, 1973. Further, Ernest Burkhardt, field representative for the joint venture architects, testified that the work involved here was new construction, but it became a remodeling job before they were through with it.

[101 Ill.App.3d 517] Robert Christiansen, executive director of the Commission, testified that bids were sought before the drawings were completed to avoid the increased costs of labor and materials. However, he believed that the changes, compared to the size of the contract, were minor and reasonable from the standpoint of the Commission and were done at a later stage so as not to impede the contractor in his work. Christiansen also indicated that Addenda were issued to bidders which specifically provided that they would be incorporated into the terms of the contract. These revisions would be reflected in the construction drawings which are issued after a contract is awarded.

The Commission introduced pertinent provisions of its contract with Lombard which are as follows:

"GC-22. Changes in the Work

a. The Owner may make changes in the work of the Contractor by making alterations therein, or by making additions thereto, or by making deductions or omissions

Page 891

[57 Ill.Dec. 211] therefrom without invalidating the Contract, and without releasing or relieving the Contractor from any guarantee given by him pursuant to the Contract provisions, and without affecting the validity of the guarantee or performance bond, and without relieving or releasing the surety or sureties of said bond. All such work shall be executed under the conditions of the original contract. The Contractor shall submit to Architects 'As Built' or revised drawings clearly showing the revised work, all as required by Section 1-7 of the Technical Specifications.

GC-24. Delays and Extensions of Time

b. If the Contractor be delayed at any time in the progress of the work by any act or omission of the Owner or the Architects, or of any employee of either, or by any other contractor employed by the Owner, or by changes ordered in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Co., s. 82-2176
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • May 10, 1983
    ...Co. v. Sanitary Dist., 367 Ill. 360, 11 N.E.2d 361 (1937) (10-months delay); M.A. Lombard & Son Co. v. Public Building Commission, 101 Ill.App.3d 514, 57 Ill.Dec. 209, 428 N.E.2d 889, 892 (1st Dist.1981); Bates & Rogers Construction Corp. v. North Shore Sanitary Dist., 92 Ill.App.3d 90, 47 ......
  • A Kan. Corp.. v. Mohawk Constr., Case No. 06-1043-JTM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • March 16, 2010
    ...Wis.2d 298,] 432 N.W.2d [584,] 586 [ (1988) ], “fraud or misrepresentation,” M.A. Lombard & Son Co. v. Public Building Commission, [101 Ill.App.3d 514, 57 Ill.Dec. 209,] 428 N.E.2d [889,] 892 [ (1981) ], on the part of the agency asserting the clause. No such wrongdoings were alleged in thi......
  • Soc. Bicycles LLC v. City of Chi. Dep't of Transp., Case No. 19 C 5253
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • January 22, 2020
    ...the original bid proposal will not ... act to invalidate the contract") (citing M.A. Lombard & Son Co. v. Pub. Bldg. Comm'n of Chi. , 101 Ill. App. 3d 514, 57 Ill.Dec. 209, 428 N.E.2d 889 (1981) ).The 2011 RFP expressly contemplated that the resulting contract "may provide that the City may......
  • Markwed Excavating, Inc. v. City of Mandan, 20100076.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • November 15, 2010
    ...to the general rule that no damages for delay clauses are enforceable.791 N.W.2d 28M.A. Lombard & Son Co. v. Public Bldg. Comm'n, 101 Ill.App.3d 514, 57 Ill.Dec. 209, 428 N.E.2d 889, 892-93 (1981); Houston v. R.F. Ball Constr. Co., Inc., 570 S.W.2d 75, 78 (Tex.Civ.App.1978); Western Enginee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT