Procurement and Bid Disputes

An unsuccessful bidder may challenge how an owner evaluated the proposals or allege that the evaluation relied on criteria that were not disclosed. We compare the published requirements with the evaluation plan, scoring records and reasons for the decision to assess whether the process followed the procurement documents.

A bidder may challenge rejection for failing to satisfy a mandatory requirement or argue that an irregularity should have been waived. We review the bid against the tender requirements and any discretion reserved to the owner, then assess whether the basis for rejection can be supported by the procurement record.

Owners may cancel a procurement because of pricing, project changes, funding or other circumstances. We review the tender terms, the reasons for cancellation and any proposed replacement process to assess the owner’s contractual obligations and potential exposure to bidders.

A bidder may seek urgent court relief to stop an owner from awarding or proceeding with a contract. We assess whether an injunction is realistically available and represent owners responding to applications brought before the project proceeds.

A bidder may challenge an award where the successful proponent allegedly failed an eligibility or mandatory requirement. We compare the winning submission with the procurement documents and assess whether the owner applied the stated requirements consistently.

An unsuccessful bidder may claim the profit it would have earned if the contract had been awarded through a compliant process. We assess the tender estimate, anticipated costs, margins and the bidder’s ability to perform the work, together with any contractual provision that may limit recovery.

A debriefing can help identify how an unsuccessful bid was assessed and whether there is a basis for further review. In public-sector procurements, additional records may also be available through statutory access procedures. We review the information obtained alongside the tender documents and evaluation record before a claim or protest is advanced.

Some tender processes create binding obligations between the owner and compliant bidders before the construction contract is awarded. Other procurement documents expressly avoid that result. We review the procurement documents as a whole to identify the contractual obligations that governed the bidding process.

Procurement documents often reserve discretion to the owner and may also limit or exclude claims arising from the process. We assess the wording of those provisions against the allegation being made and determine how they affect the owner’s discretion or the bidder’s available remedies.

Pricing and other bid errors can create significant problems after closing, particularly where the bid must remain open for a stated period. We review the tender terms, the nature of the mistake, the timing of its discovery and what the owner knew before accepting the bid.

Construction bid depository rules can affect how subcontractor prices are submitted, carried and withdrawn. We review those rules alongside the prime tender to determine which subcontract prices formed part of the bid and what obligations arose after award.

Disputes may arise where a subcontractor was named or carried in a bid but does not receive the work after the prime contract is awarded. We assess the contractual relationships among the subcontractor, bidder and owner to identify the available claim or defence.

Joint venture and consortium bids can raise issues about eligibility, the identity of the bidding entity and changes to the team after prequalification. We review the teaming agreement, procurement documents and any change in membership or scope that may affect the bid.

Public-sector procurements may be subject to trade agreement requirements governing notice, evaluation, award and supplier challenges. We first assess whether the procurement falls within the applicable regime, then review the process against the requirements that govern it. We act for suppliers bringing procurement challenges and for public owners responding to them.

Some procurement decisions by public bodies may be challenged by judicial review, while others are treated primarily as contractual disputes. We assess the nature of the decision and the available record to determine whether the matter belongs in judicial review, a civil action or another available challenge process.

Owners may restrict a procurement to prequalified suppliers or exclude bidders based on stated eligibility or past-performance requirements. We review the criteria, scoring record and reasons for exclusion to assess whether the decision followed the procurement terms and any applicable public-sector obligations.

Tender documents may require a bid bond or deposit to secure the bidder’s commitment to enter the contract if selected. We act in disputes involving calls on bid security, forfeiture and the obligations of bidders and sureties after an award.

Procurement disputes can involve several different deadlines. Civil claims may be subject to the Limitation Act, while procurement documents or trade agreement procedures may impose much shorter periods for a protest or challenge. We identify the applicable deadlines as soon as the procurement decision is known.

We represent clients in negotiated resolution, mediation, arbitration and proceedings before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. We prepare the procurement record, contractual issues and damages evidence required to advance or defend the claim in the forum that applies.