3. Mistake is generally insufficient grounds for amendment of a bid
proposal after the opening of bids.
a. A bid proposal must respond in all material respects to the
specifications or it is not a bid but a new proposition. Sutton
v City of St Paul, 48 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. 1951).
b. An alleged clerical error was the cause of a bidder filling in
the wrong blank spaces on a bid proposal thereby leaving the space
for the base bid empty. The base bid figure had been placed in
the space for an alternate bid. The Attorney General found the
proposal to be insufficient in one of the most fundamental aspects
-- price. The proposal as written left doubt as to the
contract price and permitted the bidder the advantage of negotiating
price by interpretation of the bidder's intent subsequent to the
opening of bids. O.A.G. 707a, October 18, 1963. Had the
bidder discovered the error before bid opening and had the
specifications permitted modification before the bid opening, the
error could have been corrected. Even a mistake by a bidder
which is in the financial interests of the county invalidates a
proposal if the mistake constitutes a material deviation in the
specifications. O.A.G. 707-A7, March 2, 1954; Coller v.
City of St. Paul, 26 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. 1947).
c. The existence of a minor technical defect in a bid does not
render a bid invalid. For instance, the omission of a
Affidavit of Non-collusion, which was subsequently submitted, is a
technical defect which does not invalidate a bid. Foley
Bros. v. Marshall, 123 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 1963). Another example
is the submission of a bid shortly after the time for submission but
prior to the opening of bids; this would not prohibit consideration
and award of the bid to that bidder if found to be the lowest
responsible bidder. Nielsen v. City of St. Paul, 88 N.W.2d 853
(Minn. 1958). Another illustration is the omission of a bid
bond, which does not invalidate a bid. Johnson v. City of
Jordan, 352 N.W. 2d 500 (Minn. App. 1984).
d. The distinction between the existence of a minor technical
defect and a nonconforming bid is that when there is a defect in a
procedural requirement which may grant an advantage in the ease of
entry into competition rather than an advantage in the competition
itself, the error in the bidding can be overlooked. However,
should a bid materially vary from the bidding procedure, a challenge
can be raised. Johnson, supra.
e. "It is the duty of public officers charged with the
responsibility of letting contracts...to adopt in advance of calling
for bids, reasonably definite plans, or specifications as a basis on
which bids may be received. Such officers...are without power
to reserve in the plans or specifications...the power to make
exceptions, releases or modifications in the contract after it has
been let, which will afford opportunities
