{"id":37858,"date":"2025-09-10T14:42:28","date_gmt":"2025-09-10T18:42:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/?p=37858"},"modified":"2025-09-10T14:47:03","modified_gmt":"2025-09-10T18:47:03","slug":"public-construction-tenders-can-a-bid-be-modified-after-submission-the-court-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/construction-and-infrastructure-law\/public-construction-tenders-can-a-bid-be-modified-after-submission-the-court-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"Public construction tenders: Can a bid be modified after submission? The court rules"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In public construction tenders, the integrity of the process must take precedence over the pursuit of the lowest price. A recent decision involving the City of L\u00e9vis (the \u201cCity<\/strong>\u201d) confirms this: the lowest bid may be rejected if it fails to meet an essential requirement at the time of submission. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision is a clear reminder to contractors that initial non-compliance of a tender can have serious consequences, including the loss of a contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How two missing wheels sparked a tendering dispute<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

On July 19, 2022, the City issued a call for tenders for a snow removal contract in the Pintendre district. The specifications required bidders to have a six-wheel-drive grader for the duration of the contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Excavation Marcel V\u00e9zina Inc. (\u201cV\u00e9zina\u201d) submitted its bid, the company owned only a four-wheel-drive grader\u2014something not disclosed in its tender documents. As the lowest bidder at the opening, V\u00e9zina was slated to be awarded the contract, with adjudication scheduled for mid-September of that year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the bid opening, however, the City requested clarification regarding V\u00e9zina\u2019s equipment. On August 26, V\u00e9zina submitted a new schedule stating that it had since acquired the required six-wheel-drive grader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite those changes, the City awarded the contract to the second-lowest bidder, finding V\u00e9zina\u2019s bid non-compliant at the time of submission. V\u00e9zina contested the decision, arguing that the modification was permitted and that its bid should have been accepted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Parties\u2019 positions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

V\u00e9zina maintained that its bid was compliant, even though the proper equipment was acquired only after submission. V\u00e9zina claimed that a clause in the specifications allowed for corrections and that its actions did not compromise the integrity of the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The City responded that V\u00e9zina\u2019s bid contained a major irregularity, as it failed to meet an essential requirement of the specifications. It further argued that the specifications expressly prohibited modifications during the 120-day validity period following submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Court\u2019s decision<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Relying on principles established in case law, the court held that the requirement to own a six-wheel-drive grader was an essential condition of the call for tenders because:<\/p>\n\n\n\n