Canada: Focus On Construction: Liability Of Consultants In Tendering Process

Last Updated: October 7 2008
Article by Peter A.K. Vetsch

An almost overwhelming amount of Canadian jurisprudence and academic commentary in the past 30 years has canvassed a project owner's duties to bidders during the course of a tender process and the obligations and potential liabilities triggered upon the submission of a tender bid, from the landmark 1981 Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd.1 to the deluge of case law and other analysis that has followed and expanded on it. In comparison, there has been significantly less discussion, both judicial and otherwise, about the duties and liabilities of the consultant in the tendering process, the architect or engineer hired by the owner to prepare tender packages, administer the bidding process and, in some cases, make recommendations to the owner regarding the preferred bidder. However, this relative lack of attention is not an indication that consultants are any less at risk of bearing legal liability for negligent acts or omissions in the tendering phase of a project.

The Canadian Law of Architecture & Engineering, 2nd ed., sets out the generally-accepted professional standard of care for a consultant working on a construction project:

Unless expressly stated in the contract for professional services, in all the work done for the client, the architect or engineer owes a duty to exercise the skill, care, diligence which may reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary competence, measured by the professional standard of the time.

...[A]rchitects or engineers are not obliged to perform to the standards of the most competent and qualified members of the profession, unless they so covenant. Unless they undertake to exercise a higher standard of care, what is required of architects or engineers is reasonable skill, care and diligence as judged generally by standards of competence in the profession in which they practice.... [Further], architects and engineers do not guarantee that their work will be successful. Provided that they have exercised reasonable judgment, competence and diligence in doing the work, the fact that the work proves unsatisfactory in some way will not render them liable to the client for breach of contract or negligence.2

Consultants can be held liable to the project owner and others for a failure to perform their professional obligations in accordance with this standard of care. In the context of the tender process, this requires the consultant to operate within the guidelines and framework of the process and to ensure that the documents prepared as part of the tender packages convey sufficient and accurate information to support a tender bid. The consultant controls and disperses the essential project information upon which bids are based, and as such, it is under a duty to ensure that such information is accurate, is free from material errors and is properly handled. The impact of this duty was discussed in the 1984 Ontario High Court of Justice case of Cardinal Construction Ltd. v. Brockville (Municipality)3, where, after a review of tender documentation prepared by the project consultant that conveyed an incorrect representation of the existing conditions at the project site and thereby misled bidders as to the scope of work necessary to complete the project, the Court stated as a general rule that "a bidder is entitled and expected to rely on the tender documents as conveying the best information the engineer can give"4. Consultants must carefully prepare tender packages keeping in mind the average bidder, not the bidder who has special knowledge and experience, and "it is not good provide information that is misleading, incomplete or inaccurate with the intention that the more experienced or knowledgeable bidder will ferret out the problems from 'clues'. The information should be clear and intelligible to all bidders"5. The engineer that prepares bid documents owes a duty of care to bidders that are known to rely on the information contained in such documents and must ensure that the information presented reflects with reasonable accuracy the nature of the work.6

In addition to its obligations relating to the preparation of tender documents, the consultant can also attract liability for negligent or improper acts and omissions during the course of bid solicitation and selection. A recent British Columbia decision, Stanco Projects Ltd. v. British Columbia (Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection)7, canvasses both of these areas of potential liability in detail and provides an excellent example of the pitfalls that a consultant can face in a tendering dispute. In Stanco, Aplin & Martin, the project engineer, prepared a tender package for the owner Ministry seeking bids for the construction of two reservoirs known as the Alpine tank and the Nordic tank. Aplin & Martin signed a service contract with the Ministry agreeing to perform engineering work in accordance with the professional standard of care and to indemnify the Ministry for any loss or damage arising out of its acts or omissions.

The tender documents prepared by Aplin & Martin requested a breakdown of the individual bid prices for each tank, with such prices based on the use of glass fused to steel to construct the tanks. The documents also requested the level of global price savings that would be achieved if the tanks were constructed out of cheaper materials -- namely, epoxy-coated steel -- and they further stated that the Ministry might decide to construct one but not both tanks. However, the bid documents did not seek individual price breakdowns for the Alpine tank separate from the Nordic tank based on the possible use of the cheaper epoxy-coated steel (despite doing so for the use of glass fused to steel). After the bid process was complete, Stanco Projects was the low bidder on the combined package of the two tanks in both glass fused to steel and epoxy; another contractor, Westport, was the second lowest bidder.

Shortly after the tenders were opened, the Ministry decided that it would be proceeding with the construction of only the Alpine tank and that it would be using the cheaper epoxy. At this point, it became apparent that Aplin & Martin's tender documents did not request a separate price for each tank in epoxy. Aplin & Martin therefore contacted Stanco, the low bidder, and requested a price for the Alpine tank in epoxy. However, it then contacted both Westport and another bidder, Tritech, and requested the same additional price information, later representing to Stanco that it had spoken to no other bidders in this regard. Westport, aware of Stanco's prior pricing from the opened tenders, presented Aplin & Martin with a significantly lower price for the epoxy Alpine tank than its earlier tender price for both tanks in epoxy (based on a pro rata analysis of the work involved in each bid). Stanco's quoted price for the single tank was higher than Westport's. After unsuccessful attempts to get Stanco to lower its price, Aplin & Martin recommended that the Ministry award the construction contract to Westport and the Ministry did so. Stanco sued the Ministry for breach of the tender contract, arguing that, as the low compliant bidder in a formal tendering process, it was entitled to be awarded the reservoir construction work. The Ministry defended the action, but also added Aplin & Martin as a third party, claiming that any loss suffered by Stanco was as a result of the consultant's breaches of the service contract and its duty of care.

Both the British Columbia Supreme Court in 2004 and the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2006 agreed that the post-tender solicitation of prices for the single Alpine tank in epoxy resulted in Stanco's low tender bid for both tanks being used as a bargaining tool in order for the Ministry to obtain a better price on the single tank. The courts thus held the Ministry liable for breach of the tendering Contract A. However, they disagreed about the Ministry's third party claim for indemnity from the consultant. The British Columbia Supreme Court held that, while Aplin & Martin's post-tender pricing communications with bidders other than Stanco was "plainly wrong"8 and amounted to a breach of its duty of care, it concluded that the Ministry, an experienced party in tendering, was sufficiently informed by Aplin & Martin of what had transpired and had evaluated the situation independently, thereby superseding the impact of the consultant's breach and eliminating the causal link between Aplin's breach and Stanco's resulting loss.

The Court of Appeal overturned the portion of the lower court's decision relating to Aplin & Martin's liability and made a strong statement about a consultant's contractual and tortious responsibility for its improper and negligent actions in the tendering process. The Court first confirmed that Aplin & Martin was "bound by contract and by tort law to provide advice to a standard of 'care, skill and diligence' reasonably expected of professional engineering consultants."9 It then set out the various errors that Aplin had committed in its dealings with bidders and the Ministry, including failing to require a separate price for each tank in epoxy in the tender documents and proceeding to contact Westport and Tritech for such a price after realizing this oversight once bids were opened. "These initial errors clearly led, in my view, to the unravelling of the entire bid process"10 -- a process that Aplin & Martin, as consultant, was obliged to administer. Turning to the Supreme Court's conclusion that these errors did not directly or indirectly lead to the loss or damage that resulted from the Ministry's decision to award the construction contract to Westport, the Court of Appeal strongly disagreed:

In our view, this reasoning ignores the fact that it was Aplin's negligence that placed the Ministry in the situation in which it was presented with a choice between the two prices and, not surprisingly, chose the cheaper one. If Aplin had written the bid so as to elicit a separate price for an epoxy-coated tank, if [Aplin's representative] Mr. Casidy had not contacted Westport and Tritech after telling [the Ministry] he would contact Stanco, if he had not asked Stanco to reconsider its revised price...and if Mr. Casidy had not misspoken to [Stanco] about his communication with other bidders, the Ministry's situation would have been very different in mid-July. Indeed, it is difficult not to conclude that the bid process would have proceeded without incident and that the Ministry would simply have chosen the best bid without further discussion, avoiding all the post-tender activity that ultimately led the trial judge to conclude that the duty of fairness owed by the Ministry to Stanco was breached.11

Therefore, even though it was ultimately the Ministry's decision to award the construction contract to Westport and not to Stanco, "Aplin contributed materially to the breach of the duty of fairness owed by the Ministry to Stanco. The Ministry's decision was the culminating event of the process -- but not the only contributing cause. Contrary to the trial judge's suggestion, the Ministry's expertise concerning the tendering process should not operate to shield the consultant from its share of responsibility in the matter."12 In this case, since Aplin had signed a service contract with the Ministry agreeing to indemnify it for any and all losses arising out of Aplin's negligence, the Court ultimately found that Aplin was liable to reimburse the Ministry for the full amount of the damages awarded to Stanco and payable by the Ministry in the action.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal's discussion of a consultant's duties and liabilities in preparing and administering the tendering process in Stanco Projects has not yet been subsequently considered in Alberta, but it is a clear warning to architects and engineers in the province who are engaged in bidding projects that liability for breaches of tender process obligations will not always begin and end with the project owner. Conversely, it is a notice to owners facing potential claims from disgruntled bidders that, in the right factual circumstances, they may have access to a source of contribution and indemnity for any damage award that may ultimately be awarded against them as a result of a tendering dispute.


1. R. v. Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 111, 119 D.L.R. (3d) 267.

2. B.M. McLachlin, W.J. Wallace & A.M. Grant, The Canadian Law of Architecture & Engineering, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1994) at 101-02.

3. Cardinal Construction Ltd. v. Brockville (Municipality) (1984), 4 C.L.R. 149, 1984 CarswellOnt 517 (H.C.J.).

4. Ibid. at para. 54.

5. Ibid.

6. Paul Sandori & William M. Pigott, Bidding and Tendering: What Is The Law?, 3rd ed. (Markham: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2004) at 184.

7. Stanco Projects Ltd. v. British Columbia (Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection), 2004 BCSC 1038, 32 B.C.L.R. (4th) 302, reversed in part by 2006 BCCA 246, 53 B.C.L.R. (4th) 16.

8. Ibid. at para. 153 (BCSC).

9. Ibid. at para. 67 (BCCA).

10. Ibid. at para. 69.

11. Ibid. at para. 74.

12. Ibid. at para. 76.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific 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.

In association with
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.