Subcontract Protest - Implied-In-Fact Contract

No big deal. The breach of implied contract theory in prime-prospective subcontractor bidding relations is not a new idea.

Vern, Could you help with case citations to support your analysis?

My analysis? What analysis? You asked for thoughts. My thought is that the idea is not new. I've heard it before. It's been discussed.

See e.g., 1 Bruner & O'Connor Construction Law § 2:116, "Contract formation by competitive sealed bidding -- "Firm bid" rule and enforcement of sub-bids -- Promissory estoppel: "One-way" or two-way" street for subcontractors**."**

Thanks Vern. I will try to find that reference and read through it; trust it is on point. And my apologies, I was assuming your thoughts were informed by some analysis.

garth:

"On point" about what? The New Mexico case -- Orion Technical Resources, LLC v. Los Alamos National Security, LLC and Compa Industries, Inc., 287 P.3d 967 (2012)? Are your interested in implied-contract theory in the context of commercial competitive bidding? Are you thinking of suing someone or of getting sued. Are you worried about an outbreak of similar cases?

My only thought was: This is not a new idea. McKenna Long's notion that prime contractor should "look out" is silly.