Sayer v. Minnesota Department of Transportation

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether Flatiron-Manson’s proposal for replacing the I-35W bridge complied with MnDOT’s request for proposals under Minnesota’s design-build best-value procurement statute. The court held that the proposal was materially responsive and affirmed the award of the contract and the lower courts’ decisions.

Holdings

1. The traditional common-law rule requiring strict conformity with every bid specification does not govern responsiveness determinations under Minnesota's design-build best-value procurement process; the proposal must be evaluated under the applicable statute, RFP, and instructions to proposers.
2. Flatiron-Manson's proposal was responsive even to the extent it proposed work outside the existing right-of-way at Second Street because the RFP's prohibition on additional capacity or right-of-way was not a project-wide prohibition.
3. Flatiron-Manson's concrete-box design was responsive because the RFP required three webs for the concrete-box design generally, not three webs per concrete-box girder, and Flatiron-Manson proposed four webs per direction of traffic.
4. Flatiron-Manson's proposal was materially responsive to the RFP, and MnDOT's award of the I-35W bridge contract did not violate Minnesota Statutes section 161.3426, subdivision 1(a).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the traditional common-law definition of bid responsiveness applies to Minnesota's design-build best-value procurement process.
2. Whether Flatiron-Manson's proposal was nonresponsive because it proposed work requiring additional right-of-way at Second Street.
3. Whether Flatiron-Manson's concrete-box design was nonresponsive because it used two webs per concrete-box girder rather than three webs per girder.

Disposition

affirmed