{
  "id": 2722846,
  "name": "Rossi Contractors, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rossi Contractors v. State",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-548",
  "first_page": "133",
  "last_page": "137",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 133"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "131 Ill.App.2d 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2909866
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/131/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 Ill.App.3d 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5378152
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/21/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 Ill. 114",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5641696
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/234/0114-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.E. 564",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 Ill. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3326545
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/226/0009-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 491,
    "char_count": 8115,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.841,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5330875625009783e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2838059284537438
    },
    "sha256": "9837f8c74c424fef0745159aeea368c65f07d39e54aa656a5a65c11d71f7af47",
    "simhash": "1:9f237e86e26db4b6",
    "word_count": 1347
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:35.411419+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Rossi Contractors, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Burks, J.\nThis claim is brought pursuant to \u00a78(b) of the Court of Claims Act for rescission of a contract bid and for a refund of a bid deposit which accompanied Claimant\u2019s bid for a contract to do certain construction work for the Respondent. The amount claimed is $150,000.00\nFrom a stipulation of facts, the testimony, and other evidence in the record, we restate the undisputed facts as follows:\nOn August 10, 1973, the Claimant submitted its bid to the Respondent for \"Phase 1 Construction of the Busse Woods Reservoir\u201d (Contract #FR-234) in the amount of $2,979,145. With its bid, Claimant submitted a certified check in the amount of $200,000 as a proposal guarantee, as prescribed by the Respondent for bid proposals falling within a range of three to five million dollars. Claimant had intended its bid to be in the sum of $3,455,145. The lower amount actually bid in error ($2,979,145) would have required a lower bid deposit of $150,000.\nThe Claimant\u2019s schedule of unit prices in the proposal had been completed at its home office in Chicago on August 9th, except for Item 4, \"Earth Excavation,\u201d which was completed on August 10th in Springfield after a phone conversation between one of Claimant\u2019s partners, Angelo Rossi, and the Claimant\u2019s main office. This was evidenced by examining the original proposal and noticing that Item 4 is written in a different color of ink than the remainder of the proposal. The Claimant\u2019s main office had relayed a unit cost of $1.28 per cubic yard, but the message was misunderstood and a unit price of $1.08 per cubic yard was erroneously entered in the Claimant\u2019s proposal a short time before the deadline for submitting bids. By reason of said mistake, the Claimant\u2019s proposal was $476,000 lower than intended. (Respondent\u2019s engineer had actually estimated the cost of earth removal at $1.75 per cubic yard.)\nImmediately upon discovery of the mistake, on the evening of the same day, and prior to acceptance of the Claimant\u2019s bid by the Respondent, the Claimant sent a telegram to the Respondent informing the Respondent of the facts set forth above and requesting that the Claimant\u2019s bid be revised accordingly or that its bid be withdrawn. Some 28 days later, on September 7, 1973, the Respondent advised the Claimant by letter that the construction contract had been awarded to the Claimant for the sum of $2,979,145.00\nClaimant\u2019s bid was approximately $175,000 lower than Respondent\u2019s stated appropriation for this work, was $820,865 below the estimate of Respondent engineer for the same work, and was approximately $800,000 below the next lowest bidder.\nWe find that Claimant\u2019s bid was so disproportionate to Respondent\u2019s own estimate and the other bids, that Respondent should have known that Claimant\u2019s bid was the result of a mistake, as Claimant had stated in its immediate and timely notice to the Respondent.\nA further fact that gave notice of the error to the Respondent was the $200,000 Claimant tendered as a bid deposit guarantee of three million dollars, rather than tendering a check for $150,000, the amount requested by the Respondent for bids in the two to three million dollar range. Respondent has returned $50,000 to the Claimant, the excess in Claimant\u2019s proposal deposit guarantee tendered, and the Respondent has re-let the construction contract to another contractor.\nFinally, we take notice that the Department of Transportation has withdrawn its opposition to this claim in a letter dated April 3, 1975, from Langhorne Bond, Secretary of the Department, to Attorney General Scott which reads as follows:\nAfter having reviewed the claim of Rossi Contractors, presently pending in the Illinois Court of Claims, for return of a $150,000 proposal guaranty, I have come to the conclusion that the contentions of the principals of Rossi Contractors, its Chief Engineer and documentary evidence produced in recent discovery proceedings corroborating those contentions no longer warrants continuation of the Department of Transportation\u2019s opposition to this claim.\nThe contractor in this case has established that its $2.9 million bid, opened on August 10, 1973, was inadvertently computed without inclusion of profit and overhead, resulting in a substantial underbid.\nI am, therefore, directing you to stipulate on behalf of the Department of Transportation to the fact that a mistake exists in the computation of the August 10, 1973, bid in order to avoid the additional delay and expense on both sides of a full evidentiary hearing, which is unwarranted by the facts underlying this claim.\nThis Court ruled in favor of the Claimant in a similar case, Consolidated Engineering Division, et al. v. State, No. 5487 filed April 27, 1971 in which we also cautioned:\nThe Court is mindful of the fact that public officials should exercise extreme care and caution to avoid abuses of the competitive bidding processes which have come to light in the past. An example would be a case in which a low bidder, after being awarded a contract, discovers that he has made a mistake in his bid and is allowed to raise his price so long as it does not exceed the amount of the next lowest bid. Such a practice would be manifestly unfair to all other bonafide bidders and would open the door to collusion, favoritism and fraud.\nSuch is not the situation in the case before us. Nor do we find sufficient evidence in the record to support a conclusion that Claimant\u2019s mistake was the result of negligence. The exercise of due care by a bidder is a condition required for rescission as was held in Steinmeyer v. Schroeppel, 226 Ill. 9, 80 N.E. 564. The case at bar can be contrasted with Steinmeyer as the Supreme Court did in Bromagin v. City of Bloomington, 234 Ill. 114, 120:\nThe appellants place great reliance upon Steinmeyer v. Schroeppel, 226 Ill. 9. This case is distinguished from that in two respects: First, here there seems to have been some reasonable excuse for the error made in calculating the bid; there was no such excuse in the Steinmeyer case. Second, here the party to whom the bid was made knew of the mistake at the time the bid was accepted.\nThese two older opinions were discussed in a very recent opinion which we find almost identical to the case at bar, Santucci Construction Co. v. County of Cook, 21 Ill.App.3d 527.\nIn rescinding the bid and awarding a refund of the bid deposit in Santucci, the Court restated the four requirements which must be met for a recission of a contract bid for mistake which were announced and discussed in People ex rel. Department of Public Works and Buildings v. South East National Bank of Chicago, et al., 131 Ill.App.2d 238, 240:\nThat the mistake must relate to a material feature of the contract;\nThat it is of such grave consequence that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable;\nThat it occurred notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable care; and\nThat the other party can be placed in status quo.\nWe find that all four of the above conditions are met by the Claimant in the case at bar. The bidder\u2019s mistake was an understandable human error, and Claimant did everything reasonably possible to correct the error or have its bid withdrawn immediately. Respondent had reason to know that the bid was a grave error even without Claimant\u2019s immediate notice and was not seriously prejudiced by Claimant\u2019s withdrawal of its bid. To enforce the bid proposal guarantee against the Claimant would be unconscionable under these circumstances and would result in the Respondent being unjustly enriched in the amount of $150,000.\nIt is hereby ordered that Claimant\u2019s bid on the aforesaid contract be and the same is hereby rescinded, and that its bid deposit be returned.\nClaimant is hereby awarded the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) as a refund of its bid deposit now retained by the Respondent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Burks, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dent, Hampton & McNeela, by Edward McNeela, Attorneys for Claimant.",
      "William J. Scott, Attorney General; Leonard Cahnmann, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 74-548\nRossi Contractors, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed July 11, 1975.\nDent, Hampton & McNeela, by Edward McNeela, Attorneys for Claimant.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General; Leonard Cahnmann, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0133-01",
  "first_page_order": 183,
  "last_page_order": 187
}