# Gibson & Associates, Inc. v. State, Department of Transportation & Development

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · May 18, 2011 · 2010 La.App. 1 Cir. 1696

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9780241

## Case

- **Full name:** GIBSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** May 18, 2011
- **Citations:** 2010 La.App. 1 Cir. 1696; 68 So. 3d 1128; 2011 La. App. LEXIS 586; 2011 WL 2670087
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McDONALD
- **Judges:** Whipple, McDonald, McClendon
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9780241

## Opinion text

*1142 McDONALD, J.,
agreeing.
| TWhile I agree with the majority in the decision rendered, I take this opportunity to address an issue I find somewhat troubling and perplexing. As noted by the majority in footnote 14 and 15, the request for bids had a published estimated cost range for the project of $1,000,000.00 to $2,500,000.00. However, the non-published internal DOTD preconstruction estimate was $976,986.45. Gibson’s bid was well within the published estimated cost range, however it was above the internal DOTD estimate. No one in authority at DOTD, including the chief engineer, could explain this paradox. It is difficult to understand what seems, at best, to be a contradiction. Why would the non-published internal cost estimate be outside the parameters of the published estimated cost range? If the chief engineer is “a little confused” about the process, it is small wonder that we would also not understand it. It is difficult to understand why Gibson’s bid should not have been accepted since it was within the published estimated cost range. As the majority has stated, we are constrained to agree with DOTD that LSA-R.S. 48:255(B)(5)(b) gives the chief engineer the authority to reject all bids that are above the confidential pre-construction internal cost estimate; even if he did not know of any just cause not to award the contract to Gibson. Even though it is statutorily authorized, I find it perplexing and enigmatic.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9780241. Public record. Not legal advice.