Engineering Materials - Essay Example

The major cause of McKinley's bid being rejected could be derived from their negligence to use the revised form. This negligence caused irregularity and that caused the department of agriculture to reject their bid. On appealing against the rejection of their bid, the panel of appeal also threw out the appeal because they were not sure if McKinley had indeed committed to the exact terms of the addendum sent to it by the department of agriculture. In my opinion, I will describe McKinley as being negligent and say that the department of agriculture was right in throwing out McKinley's bid, as it is indeed irregular.

The panel that heard the appeal filed by McKinley was also right to reject the case brought before it by McKinley. Irregularity in bid documents cause problems for the party that receives the bid as the commitment of the bidding party to the terms of the bid cannot be determined, and this can lead to complicated litigations. That is why bid irregularity in my opinion should not be waived For not using the new bid form sent to it in the addendum, McKinley only showed they did not commit to the bid and thus no contract exists between them.

It is known that basic elements of a contract: offer, acceptance and consideration have to be present for their to be a valid -contract between McKinley construction and the federal department of agriculture.In this case, McKinley made an offer that appealed to the department of agriculture. The department of agriculture signified their appeal to the offer and sent and addendum with a new bid form that will allow the department to consider the offer. Rather than confirm its offer with the new form, McKinley submitted the old form, which meant they did not accept the new offer as presented by the department of agriculture.

This means there could not be any consideration, thus acceptance could not be made of any of the offers and counter-offers and so there is no valid contract between McKinley construction and the department of agriculture.The department of agriculture if satisfied with the bid as submitted by McKinley should have asked for McKinley to use the appropriate form to submit its bid. While McKinley on its part should have gone to the ministry to correct the error (if it was an error) of using the old bid form rather than the new one sent to the department of agriculture.

What we are saying is that the department of agriculture should have checked on McKinley to make sure they were not making a mistake submitting the old form and see that they correct the mistake. McKinley should have also complained of an error and that the use of the ild form was a mistake. To avoid this kind of incident in the future, lawyers should be engaged by companies submitting bids to view their bid materials and ensure that all conditions for