Search
Events Calendar
« 
February 2012
 »
SMTWTFS
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829 

Volume 6 - Number 45 | November 17, 2008

Download Print Send a summary of this page to someone via email.

Recent Issues

  EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 6-45
Communication technology is a beautiful thing. Because of it, we’re able to stay in touch with friends, family, business associates, etc. It allows some of us to work from home offices and other remote and non-office locations. It also can be a very transparent form of communication – it always leaves a virtual paper trail. The downside to communication technology, such as e-mail and text messaging, is that we often assume that the message gets through on time and that the gist and tone are interpreted correctly.

In this week’s first case, a bidder e-mailed its on-time proposal to the procuring agency. Unfortunately, the bidder had the wrong e-mail address. It filed a bid protest, blaming the agency for the error, when in fact, it should have picked up the phone to confirm that the bid had been received. In the end, it took the Comptroller General to sort out the mixed messages.

In this week’s other cases, we look at decisions from two state supreme courts. In Georgia, the high court considered whether a calculated cost of repair required a determination of fair market value for a claim for defective construction. And in New York, the court considered how far an indemnity clause can reach.
  BIDDER USED WRONG E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL
When a bidder sends its proposal to the wrong e-mail address, it blames the agency for listing a “complicated and error-prone” address. The error, though, lies with the bidder, not the agency, rules the Comptroller General.
  GEORGIA HIGH COURT ADDRESSES DAMAGES FOR DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION
A calculated cost of repair is an accurate measure for determining the value of a defective construction claim. Fair market value is not necessarily a factor for establishing damages, says a state high court.
  NEW YORK HIGH COURT ENFORCES INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE
Indemnity for a workplace accident can be split between culpable parties, rules a state high court. One party can enforce an indemnity clause against another party so long as the clause does not claim to indemnify the first party for its own negligence.