## Facts

- A school district solicited competitive sealed bids for additions and renovations to a high school under its procurement code.
- Sharp Construction submitted the low bid of $16,300,000; Martin Engineering submitted the second-lowest bid of $17,375,000.
- After bids were opened, Sharp reported it had inadvertently omitted a roofing subcontractor’s price from its total and requested permission to correct the bid upward by $613,500 (or withdraw).
- Sharp’s bid identified the roofing subcontractor by name; the omitted $613,500 matched that subcontractor’s pricing appearing in other bids for the project.
- The district permitted Sharp to correct its bid to $16,913,500, which remained $461,500 below Martin’s bid.
- Martin sued for injunctive relief to block award to Sharp and to require award to Martin; the circuit court granted summary judgment to the district and Sharp.
- The case reached the state supreme court on certification, challenging the legality of allowing the post-opening upward correction.

## Issues

1. Whether the procurement code allowed the district to permit a post-opening upward correction of an “inadvertently erroneous” bid when the corrected bid remained the lowest bid and the change was not prejudicial to the district or fair competition.
2. Whether the record supported the determination that denying correction would cause the bidder a substantial loss, supporting correction rather than withdrawal or forced performance at the mistaken price.

## Decision

- The supreme court affirmed summary judgment for the district and Sharp.
- The court held the procurement code authorized correction or withdrawal of inadvertently erroneous bids before or after award, subject to a bar on changes prejudicial to the district’s interests or fair competition.
- The court found Sharp’s omission was a bona fide, clerical mistake and the intended addition was objectively verifiable.
- The court concluded the correction was not prejudicial because Sharp remained the low bidder after correction and the competitive ranking was unchanged.
- The court agreed that the uncorrected omission would impose a substantial loss on Sharp and that correction preserved cost savings for the district compared to awarding to the second-lowest bidder.

## Legal Principles

- When a procurement code permits correction of “inadvertently erroneous bids,” a public owner may allow post-opening correction, including an upward price change, if the change is not prejudicial to the public entity or fair competition.
- A post-opening correction is more likely permissible when the mistake is clerical (not a strategic judgment) and the existence and amount of the error are proven with reasonable certainty from bid documents or other objective evidence.
- A correction that does not alter the relative standing of bidders and is supported by contemporaneous, verifiable proof generally does not constitute prejudice to fair competition under sealed-bid rules.
- In administering bid-mistake provisions, an agency may consider whether denying correction would impose a substantial loss on the bidder and whether correction serves the public entity’s financial interest without impairing competitive fairness.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the district’s discretion to permit a post-opening upward correction for a proven clerical omission where the corrected bid remained the lowest and the adjustment did not harm the district’s interests or the fairness of competition.


Martin Eng'g, Inc. v. Lexington Cnty. Sch. Dist. One, 365 S.C. 1, 615 S.E.2d 110 (S.C. 2005)