St. Francis Electric v. Dept. of Transportation CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 26, 2024C098129California6,246 words

Opinion

Opinion

Eurie, J.

BACKGROUND

In September 2021, Caltrans advertised a project for the installation of fiber optic cable systems and other improvements on State Routes 51 and 99. Caltrans described the project as follows in the notice to bidders: “For Construction on State Highway in Sacramento County in and near Elk Grove and Sacramento on Route 99 from Grant Line Road to Route 50 and on Route 51 from Route 50 to 0.1 mile south of the Fort Sutter Viaduct. “[¶] . . . [¶] “Contract No. 03-0H6704 “03-Sac-51, 99-0.0/0.1, 10.0/R24.3 “Project ID 0316000005 “Federal-Aid Project “ACNH-X067(084)E” (Some capitalization omitted.)

2 The bid package included, among other things, nearly 400 pages consisting of a notice to bidders, special provisions, and standard specifications. Alfaro Communications Construction, Inc. (Alfaro) submitted the lowest bid on the project. But a couple of days after Caltrans reviewed the submitted bids, Alfaro asked to withdraw its bid, citing a mathematical error in its listed labor costs. Caltrans agreed to allow Alfaro to withdraw. It afterward rejected all bids and informed the bidders, including St. Francis, that the scope of the work and funding for the project would be…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.