NOTES
Fines for contravention of the Bid Depository Rules of Procedure will increase with the frequency of contraventions, e.g. first time offense may be $500.00 but subsequent contravention's will result in an increased fine and possible temporary suspension from the use of the Bid Depository.

Rule 3.B.

• A trade contractor submitted a Bid on the wrong Appendix C Bid Form; it was deemed that no competitive advantage was achieved - no disqualification / fine assessed.
  
  Note - a disqualification can result from using the wrong bid form if the information required on the form is pertinent to the Bid.

Rule 3.C.(i)

• A trade contractor did not supply a list of sub/subtrades and price breakdown required in the Mechanical Specification; it was deemed that a competitive advantage was achieved - Bid was disqualified.



• A trade contractor used the wrong amount for a Cash Allowance on a Schedule F; it was deemed that no competitive advantage was achieved - no disqualification / fine assessed. General contractors were issued instructions for clarification prior to closing.



• A trade contractor excluded the cost of a site service connection fee from their Bid. It was deemed a competitive advantage was achieved - bid was disqualified.



• A trade contractor qualified their bid by listing the Addenda which they had seen. It was deemed that since the list was exactly the same as those addenda that had been issued there was no competitive advantage - bidder was fined for being in contravention of the Rules.

Rule 3.C.(ii)

• A trade contractor qualified their Bid to exclude work other than that allowed by Appendix A; it was deemed that they were in contravention of the Rules - this was a post Bid Depository closing complaint; a fine was assessed. Had the complaint ruling been complete prior to the deadline for general contractor notification, a disqualification would have been enforced.



• A trade contractor qualified their bid to specify supply only; the tender documents specified supply and install -it was deemed that the contractor had a competitive advantage; bidder was disqualified.



• A trade contractor qualified their bid to specify scope of work; no exclusions other than those specified in Appendix A are permitted. Contractors scope of work matched the specification therefore it was deemed that there was not a competitive advantage - no disqualification / fine assessed.



• A trade contractor qualified their bid to specify quantities with an attachment to the Bid form; No exclusions other than those specified in Appendix A are permitted. Since the Contractors Bid Form had the correct information but the attached quantity information was not referenced on the Bid Form or was the condition of a contract, it was deemed that no competitive advantage was achieved. No disqualification; fine assessed. Instructions were issued to the General Contractors for clarification.



• A trade contractor qualified their bid to specify scope of work; no exclusions other than those specified in Appendix A are permitted. Contractors scope of work did not match tender documents therefore it was deemed that there was a competitive advantage. Bid was disqualified.



• A trade contractor qualified their bid for a specified product that was unclear in the tender documents. The tendering authority confirmed that the documents were ambiguous and the product quoted was unacceptable according to the tender documents. It was deemed that this was a contravention of the rules but no competitive advantage was achieved. No disqualification; fine assessed.

Rule 3.C.(iii)

• A trade contractor did not supply a required Separate Price; it was deemed that a competitive advantage was not achieved because the separate price was valued at $0. No disqualification; fine assessed for contravention of Rules of Procedure.



• A trade contractor did not include a specified unit price; it was deemed that no competitive advantage was achieved - no disqualification / fine assessed.



• A trade contractor did not include alternate prices as specified; an addendum modified the alternates and the resulting change increased the scope of work and the numbering of the alternates - it was deemed that they had a competitive advantage. Bid was disqualified. This contravention was quite similar to the one that follows but because of the change in scope of work, the value of the alternate price was considerably different and it impacted on the standings of the bids to the point where there may have been a competitive advantage.



• A trade contractor identified some separate prices incorrectly from information in an addendum which changed the numbering of the separate prices. It was deemed they did not have a competitive advantage - no disqualification / fine assessed. Instructions were issued to the General Contractors for clarification.



• A trade contractor supplied an alternate price that had been deleted by Addendum. It was deemed that this was not a contravention of a Rule.



• A trade contractor listed a separate price as an addition rather than a deletion as required of the general contractors in the tender documents. It was deemed that the general contractors can extrapolate the necessary information without contacting a bidder. No disqualification or other sanctions applied.



• A trade contractor provided two separate amounts that together were to be one separate price. It was deemed this was a clerical error as the general contractors only needed to add the numbers together. No sanctions were applied.

Rule 3.C.(v)

• After Bid Depository closing a trade contractor combined a non Bid Depository section with a Bid Depository section; this was a post tender closing complaint - fine assessed. Had this been a pre-tender closing complaint there would likely have been a disqualification.

Rule 3.C.(ix)

• A trade contractor issued a bid amendment that had a different written amount than numerical amount. It was deemed that in accordance with the guidelines of CCA 29 the written would take precedence over the numerical. Instructions would be sent to the general contractors informing them of this.

Rule 3.C.(xii)

• A trade contractor combined an exclusive product with other related sections; it was deemed that a competitive advantage was achieved - Bid was disqualified.

Rule 3.D.(iii)

• The trade contractor withdrew three individual prices and the combined price that contained those prices. However, they left another combined price that was also included in the combined price that was withdrawn. It was deemed this was not a contravention of the rules. No disqualification or other sanctions were applied.

Rule 3. F. (iv)

• A trade contractor bid to only one general contractor and submitted a Bonding Not Required Notice when the amounts of the other Bids were well in excess of $50,000. The budgeted amount of the work was confirmed with tendering authority and was confirmed to be well in excess of $50,000. The bidder was disqualified.

Rule 4.B.(i)

• A general contractor did not inform the Bid Depository of their intention to bid own forces. A disqualification was requested.

Rule 4.C.(i)

• A general contractor named two trade contractors on their list of named bidders. Although it is an implied requirement of the Bid Depository Rules of Procedure to name only one bidder, it is not a Rule. It was deemed that no penalty could be enforced. Note that this circumstance has led to a Rule change that was brought into effect in May 1997.



• A general contractor received combined prices that included sections not listed on other combined prices they received for the same related trade. They deemed that the value of the missing sections was insignificant and named a combined bidder with the lesser number of sections - it was deemed that they were in contravention of the Rules for not naming the bidder with the greater number of sections; a disqualification was requested.



• A general contractor did not use the alternate prices that a trade contractor provided. The grounds for the complaint were that the general contractor did not use these prices as per Rule Clarification 5.0. It was deemed that Rule Clarification 5.0 does not require the general contractor to use the price submitted but only requires that same bidder is selected for both the base price and any alternate/separate prices. No disqualification requested.



• A general contractor selected a bidder that did not bid on a section that closed through Bid Depository. They had inadvertently placed ditto marks below a trade contractor's name when they should have listed the same trade contractor as the one above it on the list. It was deemed that because of a combined price they could only contract with the trade contractor selected in the space above on the list. Therefore it was considered a clerical error and as allowed under Rule 6.5, no disqualification was requested.



• A general contractor did not list all of the names of the Bidders they received through Bid Depository; a disqualification was requested.

Rule 4.C.(v)

• A general contractor accepted a post Bid closing amendment from a trade contractor; although a copy of the written document was obtained it was not from the general contractor in question therefore insufficient information was available to make a ruling - no penalty enforced.

Rule 6.C.

• A General Contractor accepted a Bid that combined non Bid Depository work with Bid Depository work after Bid Depository closing. A disqualification was requested.

Rule 6.D.

• A general contractor selected a bidder that had been disqualified by the Bid Depository. A disqualfication was requested.



• A general contractor contracted with a withdrawn Bid Depository bidder. General contractor was fined and suspended from the use of Bid Depository for a specific number of projects.