Celco Construction Corp. v. Town of Avon (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-019-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 13-P-1880 Appeals Court CELCO CONSTRUCTION CORP. vs. TOWN OF AVON. No. 13-P-1880. Norfolk. October 8, 2014. – March 2, 2015. Present: Green, Rubin, & Agnes, JJ. Contract, Public works, Bidding for contract, Municipality, Modification, Promissory estoppel. Public Works, Bidding procedure, Extra work. Municipal Corporations, Contracts, Estoppel. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 22, 2010. The case was heard by Patrick F. Brady, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Raymond S. Ewer for the plaintiff. Doris R. MacKenzie Ehrens for the defendant. GREEN, J. In its successful bid to perform work for the defendant town of Avon (town) on a water main extension project, the plaintiff, Celco Construction Corp. (Celco), assigned a unit price of $ 0.01 as its charge to excavate each cubic yard of rock from the project site. That price was substantially lower than Celco’s actual cost to remove each cubic yard of rock; Celco constructed its bid based on its belief that the amount of rock actually on site would be considerably less than the unverified estimate indicated in the contract bid documents, so that its low unit price would give it a competitive advantage when compared to other bidders who assigned a unit price to rock removal that more closely approximated the actual cost.[1] When the amount of rock turned out to exceed the estimate by more than 1,500 cubic yards, Celco sought an “equitable adjustment” in the contract price to recover its increased costs for rock removal. See G. L. c. 30, § 39N. The town refused Celco’s request, Celco filed a complaint in the Superior Court, and a judge of that court allowed the town’s motion for summary judgment. Celco appealed, and we now affirm the judgment. Background. We summarize the undisputed facts appearing in the summary judgment record relevant to Celco’s claim of entitlement to an equitable adjustment in the contract price.[2] In 2008, the town solicited bids to perform work on a project for the installation of water mains and associated reconstruction of roadways disturbed during such installation. Celco submitted a bid and was awarded the contract. Celco’s bid included unit prices for various elements of the work including, as relevant to its claim for equitable adjustment, a specified unit price of $ 0.01 per cubic yard for excavation and disposal of […]