Australia: Building and Construction: Conditions of tendering prevail in giving all clear to abandon a tender process

Last Updated: 14 December 2009
Article by Scott Alden and Alyson Eather

A recent overseas decision relevant to Australia suggests that it may be time for tenderers to pay more attention to the conditions of tendering and consider the exclusions and discretions surrounding the tender process.

In giving an all clear to an abandonment of the tender process, the Canadian Court of Appeal in Amber Contracting Ltd v Halifax (Regional Municipality) 2009 NSCA 103 has provided some timely clarification to principals. It confirms that broad discretions in the conditions tender, and the exclusion of implied terms, will significantly dilute the ability of tenderers to enforce the process contract against the principal, particularly when the principal's actions are expressly provided for in the conditions of tender.

In the earlier Canadian case of Amber Contracting Limited v Halifax (Regional Municipality)1, Amber Contracting Limited (Amber) was successful in its claim that the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) had breached its duty of fairness to Amber Contracting and had engaged in bid shopping. HRM subsequently appealed the first instance judgment and, in October 2009, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned the first instance judgment.

The dispute

HRM called for tenders for the upgrade of the Plymouth Road sanitary pumping station located in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. HRM engaged consulting engineers to design and estimate the costs of the pumping station. Their estimate for construction was CAD$158,240. The HRM budget for the project was CAD$249,000, which included the cost of consultants.

Three contractors bid on the project, all of whom tendered a price which far exceeded the estimate and the project budget. In accordance with the conditions of tender, the tendered prices were published on the HRM website and also by the Construction Association of Nova Scotia following the opening of tenders.

As a result of the tendered prices, HRM cancelled the tender and informed each tenderer of this decision by letter. Despite cancelling the tender, HRM entered into negotiations with the lowest priced tenderer, Amber, in an attempt to negotiate a price which was acceptable to HRM. Amber's original tendered price was CAD$621,000. No significant acceptable cost savings could be negotiated and, as a result, negotiations ceased.

Almost 12 months following the original call for tenders HRM issued another tender for the construction of the pumping station. The plans and specifications were substantially the same as those issued in the original tender.

Four tenders were received, three of which had participated in the original tender process and one which had not. All tendered prices again exceeded the budget and the estimate. The lowest priced tenderer, Eisener Contracting, which was not one of the original tenderers, was awarded the Contract at a tendered price of CAD$579,282.83. At first instance Amber claimed that:

  • HRM had breached the contractual duty of fairness and good faith owed to Amber through the process contract by engaging in the process of 'bid shopping'.
  • HRM, having breached its duty of fairness and good faith, could not rely on the clause in the tender document which provided that HRM reserved the right to reject all tenders not considered to be satisfactory or to abandon the tender process at any time without recourse by the contractor (the privilege clauses).
  • It should be awarded damages equal to the amount of its lost profit on this contract, especially in light of the fact it did not take on an additional project after the publication of its position as lowest bidder.

HRM argued that there was no implied contractual obligation to award the contract to the lowest bidder in the first tender process. It further contended that, by running a second tender process after publicly opening and disclosing prices, as it was required to do, and then cancelling the first tender, no unfairness or compromise to the initial bidders resulted.

HRM relied on the privilege clauses of the tender documents which provided that:

  • HRM reserved the right to reject all tenders, abandon tenders and call for additional tenders.
  • No term or condition could be implied, based upon any industry or trade practice or custom, any practice or policy of HRM or otherwise, which is inconsistent or conflicts with the provisions contained in these conditions.
  • HRM had the right to cancel the request for tender at any time and without recourse under the contract and that HRM had the right not to award the contract.

First instance decision

At first instance the Court found that the central implied term of any process contract is the duty to treat all bidders fairly, similar to the approach taken by the Australian Courts.

The Court noted that the established practices of HRM when it received bids which exceeded the project budget were to negotiate with the lowest bidder or make major changes to the scope. Considerable weight was given to evidence which, in the Court's opinion, demonstrated those responsible for the tender process believed that in calling the tenders the following year, they would receive lower priced bids. This was based on the assumption that the high prices were due to the high volume of work currently available to construction contractors during the first tender period. The Court found that HRM personnel had engaged in bid shopping and whether or not they had intended to was not relevant. The written policy and established practice of HRM's tendering protocol provided that the municipality worked with low bidders in situations where bids exceeded the original estimate.

As a result at first instance the Court found that the ostensible reliance on budget constraints belied the true conduct of HRM, which in its view, was bid shopping. Such conduct amounts to a breach of the implied term of fairness which, the Court found, precluded HRM from relying on the Privilege Clauses.

What is a duty of fairness?

On appeal the primary focus of the Court was the privilege clauses and the extent to which those clauses affected the implied duty of fairness that HRM owed Amber.

The Court observed that 'the integrity of the bidding system must be protected where under the law of contracts it is possible to do so'2 and that central to the integrity of the tendering process is the duty of fairness which 'requires owners to treat all bidders equally, and not to place any bidder at a disadvantage in relation to its competitors during the tendering process'. However the Court noted that the duty of fairness 'does not exist in a vacuum and must be interpreted in the context of the contractual terms'.

As a result of this approach to interpreting the duty of fairness, on appeal the Court framed the key issues in this case as follows:

  • Do the privilege clauses, giving HRM the right to select any tender, invite other tenders or not to proceed at all, affect the implied term of fairness which the trial judge found HRM owed Amber?
  • Did HRM breach the implied duty of fairness?
  • If it did, should the trial judge's award of damages to Amber be altered?

At first instance the Court had decided that HRM could not rely on the privilege clauses to suggest that Amber, in accepting the conditions of tender, had waived its right to make a claim.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the earlier Court had not considered the conduct of HRM in the context of the privilege clauses, and that the trial judge had not used the proper approach in ascertaining the scope of the duty of fairness which should be analysed in the context of the entirety of the invitation to tender. The Court of Appeal decided that the specific words of the privilege clauses must be examined closely to determine the full extent of the obligation of fair and reasonable treatment3 in each case.

The Appeal Court found that the trial judge had determined that HRM had breached its duty of fairness to Amber and, as a result, could not rely on the privilege clauses, but that the first decision had failed to address the relationship between the privilege clauses, the invitation to tender and the duty of fairness. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had made an error at law.

The Appeal Court observed that the conditions of tender specifically permitted HRM to:

  • Reject all tenders if none were satisfactory and re-tender.
  • Cancel a tender without recourse to any tenderer
  • Not award the work for any reason.
  • Call for additional tenders.

The privilege clauses also provided that no term should be implied into the process contract based on previous custom or practice. As a result the fact that it was not normal custom to call additional tenders did not give rise to a breach of the duty of fairness.

In the context of the broad discretion conferred by the privilege clauses, the Appeal Court found that the fact that HRM wanted to obtain a lower price did not breach the duty of fairness.

The Court noted that the rejection of all tenders in the original tender process because the bids exceeded the project budget, and the call for a second tender process, did not amount to 'bid manipulation' or the use of bids as a negotiating tool, ie bid shopping. The trial judge found that HRM should have negotiated with Amber. However in the Court of Appeal's opinion, bid shopping would have occurred if, during negotiations, HRM threatened to reject Amber's low bid for the next highest bid unless Amber reduced its price – a situation that did not occur.

The Appeal Court also observed that the conditions of tender expressly provided for a public opening of tenders. As a result, the conditions of tender specifically permitted HRM to follow a public tender opening with a rejection of all tenders and a call for new ones. This alone could not amount to a breach of the implied duty of fairness.

The Court therefore allowed the appeal and ordered Amber to return the damages awarded at trial, plus HRM's trial and appeal costs.

1. 2008 NSSC 208

2. Ontario v Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd [1981] 1 S.C.R. 111

3. Martel Building v Canada 2000 SCC 60

© DLA Phillips Fox

DLA Phillips Fox is one of the largest legal firms in Australasia and a member of DLA Piper Group, an alliance of independent legal practices. It is a separate and distinct legal entity. For more information visit

This publication is intended as a first point of reference and should not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.