2004AP3338 Andrews Construction, Inc. v. Town of Levis

Listen to this article

“Andrews Construction contends that its alleged substantial compliance is comparable to compliance found sufficient in Luebke v. City of Watertown, 230 Wis. 512, 284 N.W. 519 (1939). At issue in Luebke was whether a bid complied with the predecessor bidder’s certificate statute, Wis. Stat. § 66.29(7). Similar to the current version, § 66.29(7) required ‘a sworn statement that [the bidder] has examined and carefully prepared his bid from the plans and specifications and has checked the same in detail before submitting said proposal.’ See Luebke, 230 Wis. at 518. The bidder in Luebke submitted a statement reciting that the bidder had ‘personally and carefully examined the plans, specifications and form of contract for the construction of the sewers [involved] … and … made such examination understandingly.’ Id. The Luebke court concluded that this statement substantially complied with the former bidder’s certificate statute even though the statement did not expressly say that the bidder had ‘checked’ the plans and specifications in detail and even though the statement was not sworn. Id.

“Regardless why the Luebke court considered the particular statement in that case to be in substantial compliance, here there was no compliance. Andrews Construction submitted no statement providing any of the assurances required by Wis. Stat. § 66.0901(7). Accordingly, the Andrews bid proposal did not comply with § 66.0901(7), and the Town had no authority to enter into a contract with Andrews based on that proposal. If there was a contract, it was void at its inception. See Bechthold, 228 Wis. at 562.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Clark County, Fleishauer, J., Lundsten, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Feltes, Charles V, Osseo

For Respondent: Piehler, David A., Wausau; Pease, Eric C., Wausau