Weitz Company, LLC v. Hands, Inc.

294 Neb. 215 (2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Weitz Company, LLC (P), a general contractor, was invited to bid on a proposed nursing facility for Good Samaritan. Subcontractors in the mechanical, engineering and plumbing fields typically submit their bids to P within 15 minutes of the deadline. P received an H&S'(D) bid 'less than 15 minutes or so' before the 2 p.m. deadline. It was 'customary for general contractors to rely on bids submitted by subcontractors' and that subcontractors submit bids because they want the job. Subcontractors knew that P relied on their bids and that subcontractors submitted bids because they wanted to procure work. D's base bid for plumbing was $2,430,600. For alternate duct and radiant heating work, D quoted $39,108 and $52,500, respectively. D also sent P a 'revised' base bid of $2,417,000, but P received the revised bid too late to be used. P assembled its bid and submitted it at $9.2 million. This bid included D’s bid. P also included a list of major subcontractors. For plumbing P wrote HEP or D. For HVAC, P wrote Falcon or D. P used a disjunctive list of major subcontractors because of the extreme time constraints it had to assemble its bid within 15 minutes. P got the job on September 2. Under the contract, Good Samaritan and its architect had the right to reject P's proposed subcontractors. But, Good Samaritan did not veto any of P's subcontractors. P called D on September 6 and told D, and that P was prepared to enter into a contract with D. D's owner and chief executive officer, Sieck, was fishing in Alaska on bid day. Sieck testified that he told his team of estimators before he left for Alaska not to send a bid to P. He had 'bitter feelings' for P because it had a 'history of bid shopping.' Another general who was bidding the project talked to Sieck and said something was wrong with his bid. Sieck called and told his employees to pull their bids. When Sieck returned from fishing, he learned that not only had his team bid P they had not pulled the bid. The team has actually reviewed the bid and found nothing wrong and did not pull it. After returning Sieck found a miscalculation involving shower units. D wrote P on September 8 to inform P of (1) a miscalculation of the cost of shower installation and (2) the omission of travel time from the cost of labor. The collective magnitude of the claimed errors exceeded $250,000. D later realized there was no mistake in shower installation and that D had only underbid travel costs. D eventually unearthed 'numerous mistakes' in its bid. Specifically, 'the material was just not accurate,' 'the dollar amount did not appear to be accurate,' and 'there wasn't enough material.' P and D could not come to terms. The magnitude of errors by D kept growing and eventually ballooned to more than $430,000. P honored its contract with Samaritan because it wanted a good reputation and get into the prequalified general contractor status. P had a lot to lose by withdrawing its bid with Samaritan. In the end with different contractors, P paid $292,492 extra. P sued D for a breach of contract and also argued that promissory estoppel bound D to its bid because P reasonably and foreseeably relied on the bid. The court determined that the parties had not formed a contract. It enforced D's bid under promissory estoppel. D appealed.